Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/4/09 12:17 PM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug(_at_)acm(_dot_)org> wrote:
Now, I know by experience that even significant contributions to an
I-D does not guarantee you a place in the acknowledgement section.
So what is the incentive into developing code that 1) will probably
be obsoleted by the next version of the I-D and 2) will not be
acknowledged at all in contributing to the improvement of the protocol?
I tend to assume people will be interested in a protocol
for some other reasons than garnering acknowledgements
and fluffing their resumes, and those other reasons will
presumably be sufficient motivation. Implementing something
will tend to be a pretty good way to find bugs, inefficiencies,
or other problems with a protocol specification. If you're
interested in kudos, take the issues you find to the mailing
list rather than directly to the author.
I'm pretty surprised by this argument.
I assumed that acknowledgement would be a good enough incentive for
developers to contribute early implementations, but you seem to
think that there would be other reasons. The fact is that feedback
from early implementations is rare, so what other reasons do you
think early implementers would have? Cannot be money - early
implementations are very likely to become obsolete at the next
version of the I-D, and so have to be rewritten.
Ietf mailing list