I admit that I'm no friend of additional I-D sections, as they easily
generate into boilerplate and "make work" projects. If the goal, which
does not seem stated, is to acknowledge the contributions of
implementations in improving a standards document, we already have a
mechanism for that, namely the customary acknowledgements found in
most RFCs. I don't think anybody would object to saying something like
"The authors gratefully recognize the efforts of Joe Programmer, whose
XYZ implementation of early versions of the draft helped to remove
useless crud from the spec."
[well, maybe not quite verbatim like that.]
We can never hope to acknowledge all implementations in any event; for
example, many are done by students in classes, and are never released
(and that's a good thing...). It seems much more useful to capture
implementations on WG-related web pages; after all, the value of
implementations does not step when the I-D hits the RFC editor's desk.
We also certainly don't want to put yet more hurdles into the path of
getting drafts published. Does the RFC editor have to verify the URLs
and that they still exist? Do we worry about advertising pages and
implementations that turn out to be malicious? I'd really rather not
have to deal with an RFC where a domain of a fledgling open-source
project was taken over by a malware distributor.
I do not see how you can have this impression, as the I-D does not
try to make implementations mandatory for Internet-Drafts - _that_
would be changing the IETF behavior. What the document says is that
early implementers efforts should be rewarded by listing their name,
sponsors and access to their code as a thank you for helping improve
the protocol. That does not change the IETF behavior - at best that
will change the quality of IETF protocols.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list