> we have just published a new revision of this draft, defining a new, > optional Implementation Status section to be included in Internet Drafts: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-03 It does look mostly ready, though I think the primary addition in -03, the recommended boilerplate, needs something. As I said many times in response to Stephen's proposal, I vehemently object to the idea that any "reward" is being given. The point here is that specs with implementations have some greater level of evidence of solidity than those without, and we're considering that evidence in our evaluations -- we not rewarding them for having it, but giving them the consideration they deserve. When the word "reward" was only in the abstract, it was less bothersome; now you're proposing that it be echoed in the boilerplate of the Implementation Status section of every document that does this. Please, no. I suggest this change to the Abstract, Introduction, and Section 2.1: OLD This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code and potentially reward the documented protocols by treating the documents with implementations preferentially. NEW This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has made the implemented protocols more mature. END And then a small point in 2.1: Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before publication, as well as the reference to [RFC Editor: replace by a reference to this document]. Why not include that directly in the recommended boilerplate?: OLD The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation Status section: This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC Editor: replace by a reference to this document]. According to [RFC Editor: replace by a reference to this document], "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code and potentially reward the documented protocols by treating the documents with implementations preferentially". Furthermore, "It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". NEW The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation Status section: This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFCXXXX]. According to [RFCXXXX], "This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has made the implemented protocols more mature." Furthermore, "It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". [RFC Editor: Please remove this entire section and the reference to RFCXXXX.] [RFC Editor: The "RFC Editor" note above is there as example text. Please do not take action on it, and leave it in the document. Instead, replace "RFCXXXX" by a reference to this document, and remove this note.] END Barry