Marc,
inline please!
On 2012-12-13 16:39, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 2012-12-13 à 10:22, Loa Andersson a écrit :
Folks,
I agree that understanding the implementation status of a draft
sometimes is essential, but not for all drafts and not always.
Today wg chairs do this type of info collection at the shepherd
write-up.
Have anyone thought about how much work goes into compiling this type
of information. There are vendors that by policy decided not to disclose
implementation information, before the implementation is done and the
document has become an RFC.
Most of the time it is possible to to get some understanding, with a
promise not to make the info public and only use it for a rather
cryptic statement in the shepherd write-up - "we know of existing or
intended implementations of this draft".
A second, rather new problem, is that for some drafts the IANA
assignment is the singular most important part of the ID. We have heard
vendors say "We'll wait for the IANA assignment until we implement!"
right. but that does not preclude doing the proposal. What you are saying is that maybe the info (in draft, wiki, tracker) may not be complete since some may not disclose. But the available information would be valuable.
Marc.
that entirely depends on the policy of the 4-5 dominating vendors in the
area that the draft is applicable for. I know of people writing drafts
there their own companies say that they can disclose implementation
information in public. Why would anyone else want to supply their
information to that draft.
I think the key word here is "in public", a trustful relationship
between working group chairs gives you enough information to progress
the document through the IESG, I'm afraid that this will be much harder
if we have an empty (or single company) "Implementation Status"
section in the drafts.
/Loa
/Loa
On 2012-12-13 16:10, 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.
--
Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@xxxxx
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
--
Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@xxxxx
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13