Keith Moore wrote:
Specific examples aside, I agree. Running code should be a necessary
condition for something to progress, but not a sufficient one.
I would have little objection to requiring running code as a test of
feasibility of a new idea. I would object strongly to an argument that
just because someone has running code, means it's a good indication of
adequacy of the protocol.
I think we would do well to require a reference implementation as a condition
for Proposed Standards from new working groups or individual submitters...but
there are other conditions that we should impose that are far more important.
Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design goals
document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite before producing a
How utterly sclerotic. And what is the IETF, the code police? If ever
there were a need to make the IETF utterly and completely beside the
point, this suggestion would be the perfect way.
Ietf mailing list