Hi Fred, I'm in complete agreement with you, but... :-) Before investing in a common set of tools to archive implementation information, I wanted to see whether there was *any* intention to make that information available. Thus, this is a baby-step towards the end result that you and I wold like to see. If, after our 18 month experiment, it turns out that no-one wants to record implementation information, we will know where we stand (or sit). OTOH, if there is good support for the idea, we can move to the next stage. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fred > Baker (fred) > Sent: 26 April 2013 17:08 > To: Yaron Sheffer > Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; tools-discuss@xxxxxxxx Discussion > Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt> > (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to > Experimental RFC > > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > - There should be long-term commitment to maintain the data. I think we > simply don't have such processes in place, and personally I don't want to even try > to deal with this problem. I suspect that we'd have to eventually use paid help if > we are serious about keeping the information current, and I don't even think it > would be worth the cost. > > Understood. That said, we already have working group wikis and errata. I don't > want to trivialize the investment, but it seems like we have at least part of the > infrastructure already. I'm asking what will be the best for IETF discussion and for > maintenance of the information. I suspect it's something we can do if we choose > to.=