Le 2012-12-13 à 10:10, Adrian Farrel a écrit : > 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. makes sense to me. Marc. > > 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. >>>>>> >>>>