RFCsYaron,
Would you be willing to add this to your I-D?-----Original Message-----starting
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 awillpoint. 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-----have a
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,http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) will
I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going todirect way to check out on the implementation status.linked from theThis is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it'sTools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF insiderswithbeaware 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 donebig)almostzero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say not thatmyforimplementation/tools.
Regards, Marc.Thanks,implementation effort.
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 zerotracker.disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within dataMarc.If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal.
Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according toproposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted.
appropriateareforever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not
in anisRFC.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 documenttofrozenin time when a document goes to RFC.
I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similarimplementationIPRdisclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page whereandand linkeddetails could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchableto from the tools page for the I-D / RFC.
They could record the document version that has been implemented,Ofalso allowspace for other notes.
Adrian (Just thinking aloud)-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalfdocument,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 toin 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.