Hi SM, > I have read every word in this document multiple times mainly in the > order they were written. :-) Hmmm, you can't be sure what order we wrote them. You can only know what order they are presented in :-) > In Section 1: > > "The scope of the intended experiment is all Internet-Drafts whether > produced within IETF working groups, outside working groups but > intended for IETF consensus, or for publication on the Independent > Stream." > > I don't think that it is up to the IETF to run experiments in the > Independent Submissions Stream. I suggest removing the text after > "IETF consensus". I think you are right. Of course, individuals pushing drafts to the ISE could do the same thing, but that is probably out of scope for us. > In Section 2: > > "In addition, this section can contain information about the > interoperability of any or all of the implementations." > > I found information about interoperability helpful in resolving > issues. Some arguments [1] are not backed by references. That makes > it difficult to make a determination. Agreed. Some implementations and some interop is undocumented and we have to take it "on trust". We should probably say that giving references in support would be highly desirable. > A good test would be to get feedback from people who has not > participated in the working group and who have implemented the > specification. It might highlight issues about document clarity, > whether a protocol is under-specified or over-specified, etc. I > understand that it is out of scope for draft-sheffer-running-code-04. Understood. > What happens to the status of this document after 18 months? I think that when we publish our analysis of results, this will either be replaced with something firmer or moved to historic. Cheers, Adrian