On 4/16/14 6:19 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote:
I think that Spencer's thesis was that it didn't happen because
"implementing towards something that isn't stable and which expires"
(and I-D) wasn't attractive, and the bar for std.track was too high,
so "something with a lower bar, which is stable and archival, but
which isn't a PS" would be helpful?
I think that the terrain has changed a bit, or at least
that's certainly what the author of the blog post is
suggesting. Implementation seemed to be de-emphasized
for some period, precisely because of the issues you
mention, but we're seeing more work being brought to the
IETF being driven by implementation (and here I'm
thinking of things like HIP and certificate transparency)
and frankly they seem to go a lot more smoothly in
terms of IETF process, as well. Chartering seems to to
more smoothly and the work progresses more quickly.
The "open source" question really seems to be more
about collaboration than to do specifically with
licensing.
I'm not sure that the IETF should get more directly
involved with supporting implementation efforts but I
do think that we should recognize that work coming
in that's already been implemented tends to be more
fully-baked and privilege that in some way. One worries
about that encouraging crappy implementation, but I'm
not sure that crappy implementation is much worse than
no implementation.
Melinda