Hi John, Seems consistent with what is in the I-D at the moment. See section 3. Thus, those who want to record the info in the I-D can do that, while those who want to go straight to a wiki can do that (although we ask that the I-D has a pointer to the wiki). Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John C > Klensin > Sent: 26 April 2013 17:51 > To: Fred Baker (fred); 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 Friday, April 26, 2013 16:07 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)" > <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Fred, > > First, I agree with both the above and with your prior note > agreeing with the general idea and suggesting something more > "live" than a section of an I-D. Second, while I certainly see > the value, I would get nervous if we were to move significantly > toward a long-term, IETF-supported, official statement or > compendium of implementation status. At least unless pursued > with great caution [1], such a thing would raise some of the > same issues that going into the conformance testing business > does in terms of the perception of guarantees that a given > implementation is somehow "IETF approved". > > Perhaps the right model would be to keep this material in I-Ds > (as the proposal suggests) to support the evolution and review > of specification documents, then to move it to a wiki or > equivalent that was clearly identified as unofficial and for the > convenience of the community and that was "maintained by the > IETF" only to the extent needed to minimize spam, libel, and > other nonsense. > > It also occurs to me that an alternative to part of the > experiment (still consistent with it, IMO) would be to start the > wiki process earlier and use the I-Ds merely to snapshot the > wiki at various points to help in the review process. That > would give both the advantages of a continually-evolving list > and those of periodic stable snapshots. > > Just a thought or two. > > john > > > > [1] Images of dragging along as small pack of lawyers, > albatross-like, are probably in order.