Marc Petit-Huguenin a écrit :
OK, so nearly everybody seems to think that I misunderstood the
motivations of early implementation contributors, so let's ask them
directly.
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
Internet-Draft.
I did early implementations in the Mobile IPv6 space. First, AH
protection of MIP6 signalling. Then an implementation of 'BAKE', a very
early other-person proposal for what later became RR tests for RO. That
was a good exercice to understand the landscape, but unfortunately none
got into an RFC. I felt it a bit disappointing and I decided to never
ever again implement anything until it's an RFC at least Proposed Standard.
I thus later did larger implementation effort of Mobile IPv6 RFC
Proposed Standard, of MUST features but which were not used by anybody
else... and even later suggested for deprecation. That's even more
disappointing.
Usually, when I do early implementation my motivation has to do with
competitivity: first let self impressed by an IETF great new feature,
then be there first before the others, claim ownership, etc.
Unfortunately it can easily be _too_ early implementation :-)
Generally in the WGs where I participate, I find it very encouraging
whenever implementers do talk.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf