> Detaching from a thread about moving a particular specification from > Experimental to PS - this means I'm (quite deliberately) taking Barry and > Cyrus Daboo's quotes out of their proper context here, please bear this in > mind. > But I happened to be talking about this recently, and this has reminded me. > On 6 March 2014 16:51, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > My point here is that until we have interoperable implementations on both > > > client and server and have caught and fixed any issues in the spec, we > > > shouldn't advance the status. > > > > Why not? Interoperable implementations aren't required for Proposed > > Standard. Internet Standard, sure, but not PS. The requirement for > > PS is that we think we got it right. > > > > > So this made sense when Proposed Standard actually meant Proposed, rather > than Standard. > But now that Proposed Standard actually means Draft, because (to paraphrase > Scott Bradner), we've left-shifted our standards process, why aren't we > requiring implementation experience for PS? That's one, IMO extreme, way to look at it. The other extreme is that we've noted that the difference between draft and full was essentially meaningless and gotten rid of it, leaving PS completely unchanged. Both extreme views fail to capture the nuances of the shift. Indeed, since this is an ongoing process and we have relatively little experience with our current two level approach, any current view is going to be based on scant data. But I think it's safe to say that PS now means more, but neverthess falls short of what draft used to mean. > We've tightened up review a far bit, and raised the bar for spec quality in > general, but since PS is now DS by any other name, it's had the effect of > side-stepping the "two independent interoperable implementation" > requirement. Sorry, I reject the implication this question is based on. PS is not the same as draft used to be. Which leaves open the question of how much more should now be required for PS. I am comfortable with making implementation experience a SHOULD for PS. But nothing more than that. In particular, interoperability testing of multiple implementations is far too high a barrier for PS. And there are going to be exception, where for various reasons implementation prior to approval is impractical. > > I would like to see more implementation experience -- it's be great to > > see. That's why I asked whether there is any. But to me, the gating > > factor is more about whether there's *interest* in implementing it. > > > > > Wouldn't it be great to require? Running code and all that, after all... First, running code is not the same as multiple interoperable implementations, which is what draft used to mean. Second, as many others have noted, the existence of running code doesn't mean as much as it used to. Our collective ability to make pigs fly should never be underestimated. In fact I'll channel my inner Pete and say that simple assertions that "I implemented this" are of no real use to me, nor, I suspect, to anyone else. What I really want to is is statements of the form, "I implemented foo, here's what was eesy, here's what was hard, here's what made no sense." That sort of thing helps me immensely when deciding whether or not something is worth doing. Ned