My faulty recollection is that in our game of rock-paper-scissors, Running
Code beats Untested Idea, but Well Reviewed Architecture and Protocol beats
Running Code.
On 7/31/07 11:34 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
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"?
that's certainly better than one implementation, especially if
implemented on multiple platforms. though still, I think, this is not
sufficient in general.
again, I'm biased because I've heard too many arguments of the form "we
have running code for <deficient protocol>, and it's already (somewhat)
deployed so we have to approve it as a standard without changing it".
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally
privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received
this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete
it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf