> Hi Ned, > On 01/16/2013 03:40 AM, Ned Freed wrote: > >> Actually I think you make a couple of great points that ought be > >> mentioned in the draft about implementability. (No chance you'd > >> have time to craft a paragraph? If not, I'll try pinch text from > >> above:-) Now that you point it out like that, I'm irritated at > >> myself for not having included it already! (It rings bells for me.) > > > > OK, I think the place for a new paragraph is just before the last > > paragraph of section 2. How about something along the lines of: > > > > A complete and correct specification is not in and of itself a guarantee of > > high quality implementations. What may seem like minor details can > > increase implementation difficulty substantially, leading to implementations > > that are fragile, contain unnecessary restrictions, or do not scale well. > > Implementation experience has the potential to catch these problems before > > the specification is finalized and becomes difficult to change. > > > > You might also want to change the final paragraph of the section a bit in > > light of the addition; I'll leave that to you to work out. > Did that, working copy at [1]. Lemme know if there're any changes > that are needed. It looks good to me. I also note that there's a reference to interoperability in the fourth paragraph of section 1. Perhaps changing For example, a framework draft will not be a good candidate because implementations of such documents are not, of themselves, interoperable. to something like For example, a framework draft will not be a good candidate because implementations of such documents are incomplete and therefore do not demonstrate either implementability or interoperability of an entire protocol. would be in order. Ned