On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Overall I think the new mission statement is quite good. One specific comment inline. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@xxxxxxx> > Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM > To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@xxxxxxxxx>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement > > On 10/27/2017 09:46 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@xxxxxxx > > <mailto:petithug@xxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On 10/27/2017 08:40 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > > Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > As you know, ISOC supports the IETF in several ways (in addition to > > > > providing funding). Please, think about how ISOC could help support the > > > > IETF in potentially new ways or how the current programs could make an > > > > even larger impact, and let's have a conversation in Singapore. Thanks! > > > > > > My take is (in this order); > > > * longer, more involved Hackathons, > > > * open source reference implementations (%) > > > * cheaply and easily reproduceable test bed/skaffolding for complex protocols > > > * facilitating conformance testing, particularly for open source implementations. > > > > If we are going in that direction then I think it about time that the IETF > > starts using formal methods to verify protocols, so instead of partially > > checking that a protocol works (which is the best that hackathons or testing > > can bring to the table), we have a guarantee that they do work. > > (self-serving too, as I am working since a couple years on yet another > > markdown language that does exactly that). > > > > > > The wonderful and frustrating thing is that there isn't a single activity that > > will capture all of what would be useful. > > Sure, but it would be a good start to have something in the ISOC mission statement about promoting protocol checking (hackathon, testing) and formal verifications of the IETF standards. > > Rather than add more specific examples to the existing set of highlighted activities, how about adding something in the mission statement about implementation and application in addition to the development of open standards. This would leave it to the IETF community to decide on methods to achieve this, e.g. more emphasis on running code, reference implementations, protocol validation, workshops on enabling new standards and functionality, etc. > I also agree with Charles here. For many "newcomers", implementing protocols is more "fun", and one of the reasons that they are willing to spend their time actually reading an I-D or RFC.