OK, so nearly everybody seems to think that I misunderstood the
motivations of early implementation contributors, so let's ask them
If you did contribute an early implementation or did think of
contributing but finally didn't, please respond to this email with
your story. Interesting points are why you did (or not) the early
implementation, will you do more, what would motivate you to do more
early implementations, etc... You can send your responses directly
to me if you do not want to respond publicly - I will keep them
confidential and post just a summary of the responses.
For the purpose of this exercise, an early implementation is an
implementation of an IETF protocol under development as an
Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/4/09 1:42 PM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug(_at_)acm(_dot_)org> wrote:
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.
Right. My experience has been that people will work
on a protocol because it's necessary for work, or a
personal project (academic), or some other reason than
they're looking for acknowledgement. I'm a little
startled, frankly, to hear that people are implementing
internet drafts to get their name out there, or that
they're doing early implementations without participating
in the working group. How common is this?
I think this proposal is generally a very bad idea but
if there's a genuine problem with inadequate incentives
for implementation hopefully that's something that can be
dealt with as a process issue rather than a document
issue. I'd be curious to see some evidence that there's
a more general problem here.
Ietf mailing list