On 12/13/12 3:11 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i meant merely to illustrate that we already have flavors for filing > implementation reports. and i was asking if/how melinda thought the > format of reporting might affect the speed and direction of the track. Right, and I'm not really sure. I don't think that implementation reports should be a mandatory document or document section. sidr seems to be functioning well but I suspect that a separate implementation report document is a consequence of it functioning well (and within a specific context) rather than a causal factor. Considering, for example, scim, where there are a bunch of implementations based on the state of the protocol prior to its adoption as an IETF working group, and it seems to me that there are is a sufficiently large number of implementations in a sufficiently dynamic set of states that a document, as opposed to a wiki, may be more difficult to maintain and ultimately less useful because of that. I do agree that there's nothing stopping working groups from experimenting with various implementation report formats now, and it may be worth trying several things out. I'll run this past the scim guys. Melinda