IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is
certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability,
mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the
design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so
forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there
were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network.
It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure.
tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"?
itojun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf