Burger, Eric wrote:
Very much agreed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
I would have little objection to requiring running code as a test of
feasibility of a new idea. I would object strongly to an argument that
just because someone has running code, means it's a good indication of
adequacy of the protocol...DKIM is a great example of a poorly designed
protocol that has been justified by running code.
I am hoping that you are agreeing with the stated principle, rather than the
provided exemplar.
As Michael noted, the exemplar asserts the assertion of justification that was
never made. (It also asserts a quality assessment that is humorously incorrect,
but gosh I suspect we ought not to slide down that slope.)
Anyhow, I am probably missing something basic about this thread, since it seems
to be re-discovering an item already in the formal IETF standards process:
4.1.1 Proposed Standard
...
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.
If folks are suggesting changes to this text, then what are the changes?
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf