In <2A7BA78A-BEF1-11D8-B76B-000A95B3BA44(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> Andrew Newton
<andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:
On Jun 15, 2004, at 12:35 PM, wayne wrote:
I have to agree with this assessment. There doesn't appear to be a
rough consensus. However, the long standing IETF mantra has, to the
best of my knowledge, been "rough consensus *AND* working code". What
we lack with most proposals is working code.
I think implementations are a good thing, a very good thing.
However, RFC 2026 mentions that to get a Proposed Standard RFC
implementations are not required (though they are encouraged). To get
a standard from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard, two separate
interoperating implementations are required.
*sigh*
Ok, for the second time in two weeks, I will quote the relevant
potions of RFC2026:
Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
designation.
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet.
I never said that we are *required* to have working code. What I have
said is that I think that working code helps reach consensus and that
the IESG may likely consider MARID to "materially affect a core
Internet Protocol" and/or "have significant operational impact on the
Internet".
Personally, I think the IESG would be nuts not to require such testing
and that we would be nuts not to have all our ducks lined up in a row
before we go to the IESG asking for a PS RFC. The requirements for
going from a PS to a DS are much higher, in particular needing two
implemenations of every feature and I suspect that the IESG will not
require that level of testing.
For a slightly longer discussion, see my earlier note at:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01796.html
-wayne