Hi Martin, On 01/14/2013 08:32 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > John Leslie wrote: >> >> I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any >> sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible >> idea to me. >> >> As a background, I'm a long-time believer in "rough consensus" for >> Proposed Standard and "running code" for advancement along the >> standards track. I do not believe the two mix well. > > I don't have the resource to participate the discussion, but > these statements capture my opinion pretty well. > > I also believe that the existence of "running code" would be a terrible > excuse for not resolving technical objections. I agree. > While implementing a spec can help finding inconsitencies and ambiguities > in a spec, Still agree. > infering the reverse when the implementation is *NOT* > created as a by-product of a formal correctness proofing tool for the > spec does not hold. Formal correctness proofs aren't really an IETF thing, so I'm lost. (I.e. I've no idea what you mean that's relevant to this draft.) > Weird implementations that are incompliant with a spec, or that ignore > rather than recognize and report defects in a spec are extremely common. Still lost. > And if the sequence of events is, that an implementation is created first, > and then producing a spec describing the alleged implementation behaviour, > is going to result in lots of surprises about the frequent lack of > correctness of both, the spec and the implementation it is based upon. You're saying that this experiment will lead to RFCs that are actually reverse engineered code being produced by IETF WGs? Really? It seems to me you're forgetting the entire process of chartering a WG and doing all the other work that precedes IETF LC. S. > > > -Martin >