Hi Yaron, I'm glad to see more discussion of this general topic. On 12/12/2012 07:31 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Hi, > > 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 believe this can achieve the same goal, which is to apply preferred > treatment to protocols that have been implemented, and with a lot less > process overhead. It also leaves much more leeway for individual working > groups to apply their own procedures and customs. > > Similarly to Stephen's proposal, we can use a process experiment (per > RFC 3933) to gauge the effectiveness of this one. > > I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list. Looks fine to me and I reckon that doing one or both of these experiments in parallel or series could make sense depending on what happens when/if they're last called. In contrast with some others who've posted, I do think doing process experiments is a good thing and we've not done enough to even know if 3933 can work or not - I only counted 4 or 5 RFCs that seem to refer to 3933. Cheers, S. PS: I just posted -02 of my proposal. [1] [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-02 > > Yaron >