Re: Running code, take 2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]