On 08/06/2005 19:07 PM, Brian Rosen allegedly wrote:
If two groups are arguing with one another, and one has implemented code and
the other has not, I think we would give great weight to the running code.
Weight yes, but "great" weight? Many things have been implemented
that only work in specific situations. You're absolutely right that
running code should be considered, because it proves the idea
implemented can work, but it's just one factor.
Probably more importantly, I think we should be VERY suspicious of new,
complex specifications before we have running code. We are very clearly NOT
doing this.
Yes
We are willing to publish a proposed standard for an entirely
new protocol that has very significant complexity, where there are people
openly skeptical that it will work at all, with nothing but some sketchy
simulations and a (admittedly well reviewed) draft. We are routinely
publishing complex protocols and significant changes/additions without even
simulations.
But that's specifically what "proposed" is for (currently). "Here's
something we think we want to make a standard -- now test it".
Perhaps there are a large number of you out there that are able to claim
reasonably complex things work based on reading a document and looking at
simulations. I am not. My experience is that getting something to actually
do what you want it to do is very illuminating.
See RFC 3439 :-). Maybe you can't tell if something complex will
work, but at least you can reduce complexity as a factor in
determining whether it will work.
I wonder if we should change our bias towards bestowing Experimental status
on drafts that ask to be published as RFCs without running code.
Absolutely.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf