Hi Randy,
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
+1
Early implementation and early design review both help improve
specifications. People who have implemented similar solutions
but not the exact draft are qualified to gauge implementation pain.
IMO commentss about implementation complexity always
deserve careful attention.
Early implementation can be extremely expensive, so the people
who do them deserve lots of credit. Often you have to prove
by writing the code "you really don't want to do it this way",
before the WG decides they messed up and over-engineered
an unworkable solution.
We just a long debate in NETMOD WG and decided to abandon
the SNMP ifType enumeration in favor of a YANG identity registry.
The key factor was the early implementation experience of
the ietf-interfaces module by 1 vendor.
Randy
Andy