Hi - >From: Larry Masinter <masinter@xxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Nov 9, 2013 5:17 AM >To: IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Subject: RE: Last Call: <C> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC > >I wrote various things about rough consensus and the implementors >and "those with implementations" in reaction to draft-resnick-on-consensus-06. > >After discussion and more thought, I wanted to retract what >I said, and offer some specific comments on the draft. > >Retraction: >"Running code" means it's the implementations (not necessarily >the implementors) that should carry the weight. Yes, for >protocols to be implemented the implementors (eventually) >have to agree, because otherwise the protocol doesn't get >implemented. But "running code" is really the code, and >not just the opinion of those who might write the code. ... I have very mixed feelings about this. Yes, it is the way some working groups function. However, implementors are in the best position to comment on the how difficult it is to implement the specification correctly, as well as how elements of the specification contribute to (or reduce) implementation complexity. Both of these have very real consequences for interoperability, security, and ensuring a diverse ecosystem of independent implementations. The mere fact that someone was able to get something to run as specified should not carry more weight than their assessment of how much unnecessary pain or overhead (CPU, memory, whatever) results from quirks of the specification. Randy