Hi Randy,
I don't know who's "we" in your question.
My proposal is aimed at an earlier stage in the process, when the WG
needs to evaluate a draft before it becomes a WG document and later,
during WGLC. During these stages, information about implementation
status is very useful, even if (as some have stated), it may not always
be available.
As to the later stage (off topic), let me just give one example. Earlier
today I sent a SecDir review where I said that a certain 1997 RFC is
probably not implemented by anybody today. I may be right or I may be
wrong, I don't have any solid data. But do you expect the author of that
RFC to maintain an up-to-date implementation status wiki for 15 years
after the RFC had been published? I don't.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 12/14/2012 02:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
to clarify, my proposal only applies to Internet Drafts, and clearly
states that the implementation section should be removed from the
document before it is published as RFC.
Formally, we don't want non-permanent stuff in RFCs. And realistically,
even if we had an implementation wiki, it is unlikely to be kept up to
date once the RFC is published.
so, we act on implementation and interoperability data which are not
kept?
randy