Hi Tom,
I am myself somewhat puzzled by the current process, where such
information is gathered prior to IESG review, because (in my limited
experience) I have never seen the IESG reject a draft merely because it
is unimplemented.
In any case, my proposal aims to move the burden to authors, who can, if
they choose, document extant implementations. This information, where
available, can allow the WG to better judge the maturity of protocol
proposals.
In cases when implementors choose not to reveal their implementations,
we are back in the existing situation. Hopefully more people would be
motivated to share such details publicly if it gives them some benefit
during the early standardization stages.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 12/14/2012 01:15 PM, t.p. wrote:
----- 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.