----- Original Message ----- From: "Yaron Sheffer" <yaronf.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> To: <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "'Alessandro Vesely'" <vesely@xxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:52 PM > Hi Adrian, > > I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero > implementation effort. I am surprised at this. Gathering information about implementations is something that happens in some WGs and not in others, but it is always the chair that is driving it, often as part of the write-up prior to IETF Last Call. This takes time, asking, chasing, clarifying, and getting replies off-list because the implementor does not have permission to reveal such matters to the world at large. Since the WG Chair is a limited resource, and is on the critical path for several actions in the progress of an I-D to RFC, asking them to do more work can only delay the progress of RFC at large. This is not a zero sum game. Tom Petch > 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. > > >