How about... Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as a starting point. Duplicate documentation in wiki may be useful and provide a place to track text for inclusion in the next revision. When/if inclusion in the I-D gets messy, replace text in I-D with pointer to wiki. When/if experiment looks like a success, replace all above with data tracker tool and allow it to persist for RFCs. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:marc.blanchet@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 13 December 2012 15:05 > To: Yaron Sheffer > Cc: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; 'Alessandro Vesely' > Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 > > > Le 2012-12-13 à 10:00, Yaron Sheffer a écrit : > > > Hi Marc, > > > > I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going to > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) will have a > direct way to check out on the implementation status. > > > > This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it's linked from the > Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF insiders will be > aware of it. > > > > sure. Let me restart: > - I like Adrian proposal: instead of in RFC, put it online within our site > - but you wrote: requires implementation effort. > - I replied: well, phase 1 (of put it online within our site) can be done with almost > zero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say not that big) for > implementation/tools. > > Regards, Marc. > > > Thanks, > > Yaron > > > > On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: > >> > >> Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi Adrian, > >>> > >>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero > implementation effort. > >> > >> disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data > tracker. > >> > >> Marc. > >> > >> > >>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal. > >>> > >>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my > proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. RFCs are > forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not appropriate in an > RFC. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Yaron > >>> > >>> On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >>>> I'm interested in this idea. > >>>> > >>>> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is > frozen > >>>> in time when a document goes to RFC. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to > IPR > >>>> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation > >>>> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable > and linked > >>>> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC. > >>>> > >>>> They could record the document version that has been implemented, and > also allow > >>>> space for other notes. > >>>> > >>>> Adrian (Just thinking aloud) > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >>>>> Alessandro Vesely > >>>>> Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58 > >>>>> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > >>>>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to > >>>>>> Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document, > >>>>>> in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for their > >>>>>> protocol, as well as their interoperability. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list. > >>>>> > >>>>> As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status" > >>>>> sections, including IPR info. I don't think anything forbids to add > >>>>> such sections, if the authors wish. I'd add a count of the number of > >>>>> I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria. > >>>> > >>