Yaron, Would you be willing to add this to your I-D? > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 13 December 2012 15:12 > To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'; ietf@xxxxxxxx; 'Alessandro Vesely' > Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 > > +1. > > Yaron > > On 12/13/2012 05:10 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > 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. > >>>>>> > >>>> > >