On 11/01/2013 10:14, The IESG wrote:
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.
I have experience in process like this, as my WG DNSEXT has required multiple implementations and inter-op testing before advancing before advancing documents that make significant changes to the DNS protocol. Having done this I'm confident that the resulting specifications and code was much better. I support this experiment but offer the following comments. Comment #1: The important part of running code is to assess clarity of the specification, thus implementation by editors of the document should not count as one-of-two required implementations Implementations by editors co-workers are ok IFF the the editors keep track of communications that lead to changes in code or draft. Comment #2: It is important that participants all realize that point of the exercise is not to point figurers at bugs. Rather the goal is to improve the specifications and make ALL the implementations as compliant and bug free as possible. Comment #3 (Section 4 point #6) Test cases used for interoperability are critical. These test cases MUST be public. Evaluations of test cases generated by the implementors and/or other working group participants are critical as that is a great indicator of the quality and thoroughness of the tests. IMHO public test cases render the point of open vs. closed source irrelevant. Comment #4: The IETF-LC and WGLC statements SHOULD contain references to the testing performed and the implementations that participated. Olafur