Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

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

 



Perhaps my final comment on this.  Also cutting the thread down to
something readable.  Inline.
S.


On 1.14.2013 10:46 , "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]
>
>
>Yes, that's clearer. We're talking about two different continuums
>(or continua:-), so either would work, and neither is important to
>this draft. I'll make the change if there's enough support for it,
>but as I guess you can see, this is an area where we won't get folks
>to entirely agree. In this case, we don't need to, since the text
>in question is just explanatory and has no significant impact on
>the experiment at all.

Definitely my final comment on this topic:  I agree that the change has no
impact on the operation of the iETF under the draft.  IMO it simply fixes
a flaw of logic.  

[...]


>>>[Š]
>>> I'd have no problem adding text that encouraged some form of
>>> independence though, if you'd like to provide some.
>> 
>> How about:
>> 
>> "If the source code has been developed independently of the authoring of
>> the draft (and ideally by non WG participants), it is likely that the
>> implementation and the draft match, and that pitfalls unaware developers
>> may find have been found and dealt with.  If, on the other hand, draft
>> author(s) and implementation developer(s) overlap, then it is sensible
>>to
>> scrutinize the draft more closely, both with respect to its match with
>>the
>> implementation and for assumptions that author/developer may have taken
>> for granted which warrant documentation in the draft."
>
>That'd be no harm to add. I don't know that it improves the document
>enough to bother though. I'll think about it, but let's see if anyone
>else cares.

Thanks.

[...]
>
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can come up with something better than "match" but
>>> if you have text to suggest, that might help.
>> 
>> Trying:
>> 
>> "Match means that all, or substantially all, protocol mechanisms of the
>> draft are implemented, that no other code points are implemented that
>> would reasonably fall into the scope of the draft in question, that all
>> documented state machines are implemented and no other state machines,
>>and
>> so forth.  The over-the-wire behavior of the implementation and of the
>> draft should substantially match, including more subtle points such as
>> timing relationship of messages, .  Minor divergences in details
>>stemming
>> from unaligned development cycles of draft and implementation are
>> acceptable."
>
>I like most of that, thanks. For now, I've added this to 2.1, let me
>know if it works:
>
>   We do not give a precise definition for "match" here but the intent
>   is that all, or substantially all, protocol mechanisms of the draft
>   are implemented, that the over-the-wire behavior of the
>   implementation and of the draft should substantially match, including
>   more subtle points such as timing relationship of messages, etc.
>   Minor divergences in details stemming from unaligned development
>   cycles of draft and implementation are acceptable.

Works for me.

>
>Cheers,
>S.
>
>PS: There's a working draft at [1] in case that helps.
>
>[1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/draft-farrell-ft-04.txt
>
>
>> 
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please consider this.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Stephan
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> On 1.11.2013 08:21 , "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alexa,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week
>>>>>IETF
>>>>> last
>>>>> call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under
>>>>> the
>>>>> rules
>>>>> of RFC 3933.
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take
>>>>>specific
>>>>> actions
>>>>> under certain circumstances in corner cases of the experiment. Could
>>>>> you
>>>>> please
>>>>> have someone in the Secretariat look at the draft and comment on the
>>>>> practicalities of the actions. Note that, at this stage, no changes
>>>>>to
>>>>> the tools
>>>>> are proposed so any actions would require manual intervention (if the
>>>>> experiment
>>>>> were successful and resulted in permanent changes to IETF process we
>>>>> might make
>>>>> changes to the tools at some future time).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-announce-
>>>>>> bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG
>>>>>> Sent: 11 January 2013 15:15
>>>>>> To: IETF-Announce
>>>>>> Subject: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to
>>>>>>RFC
>>>>>> with
>>>>> Running
>>>>>> Code) to Experimental RFC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
>>>>>> consider
>>>>>> the following document:
>>>>>> - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
>>>>>>   <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> as Experimental RFC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>>>>>>solicits
>>>>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
>>>>>>the
>>>>>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally, comments
>>>>>>may
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
>>>>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a
>>>>>> working
>>>>>>    group document to IESG review.  It is provided as a process
>>>>>>    experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group
>>>>>>chairs
>>>>>>    believe that there is running code that implements a working
>>>>>>group
>>>>>>    Internet-Draft.  The motivation is to have the IETF process
>>>>>>    explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's
>>>>>> overall
>>>>>>    philosophy of running code and rough consensus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call,
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>    Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period.
>>>>>>    Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be
>>>>>>addressed
>>>>>>    during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes
>>>>>>    within two weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    This experiment will run for one year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The file can be obtained via
>>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>





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