ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

2005-08-07 05:13:02
Brian Rosen <br(_at_)brianrosen(_dot_)net> wrote:

I notice that we have stopped being interested in running code.

   Some of us, alas, seem to have lost interest in running code.

   :^( :^( :^(

I think that is to our community's detriment.

   I could not agree more!

   (Of course, Brian is almost as old as I am; perhaps the latest
generation _believes_ that rough consensus can overrule running code...)

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.

   There was a time when we'd tell the group without running code,
"Come back when you've got some code running!" That was, IMHO, a better
time.

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.  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. 

   Unfortunately, we seem to have reached a situation in which there
is perceived to be no alternative starting point. :^(

   Here's another hint of what Ted Hardie talked about in NEWTRK: that
we must deal with ideas which are specifications, not standards; and
that "Proposed Standard" doesn't fit both categories very well.

We are routinely publishing complex protocols and significant
changes/additions without even simulations.

   I have no problem "publishing" such things; but I wish we wouldn't
publish them as if they were complete standards.

Our rules permit us to do such things.  We should rarely choose to. 
We don't know what we are getting into until we write code.  We don't
know how hard it is to implement, we don't know what works and what
doesn't.

   Actually, it's worse than that: often we don't know whether things
will work in practice until we have a year's experience of actual use.

I wonder if we should change our bias towards bestowing Experimental
status on drafts that ask to be published as RFCs without running code.

   I don't think there's much hope of changing the mindset that says
"Experimental" means "Don't use this!".

   But I believe we'd do well to establish a category for specifications
which may or may not be ready for large-scale trials, but do not qualify
for stable standards status.

   (I'll be happy to discuss this on NEWTRK, BTW, if anyone's interested.)

--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf