"Ted" == Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Ted> At 3:06 PM -0400 10/23/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal. Try to build a
>> consensus that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise,
>> it needs to be possible to write an open-source implementation
>> of a standard and that the absence of such an implementation
>> should be considered a red flag when advancing beyond proposed.
Ted> I think you have to be careful here, as "open-source" covers
Ted> a variety of licenses. Having a diverse set of
Ted> implementations is clearly a good sign that a standard's
Ted> specification is clear enough to implement and useful enough
Ted> that folks have chosen to spend the time. Those ought to be
Ted> critical aspects of our thinking when we look at how to
Ted> revive the standards track's upper reaches. But reviving it
Ted> will get more difficult, in my opinion, if we set tests like
Ted> "must show at least one implementation subject to the GPL",
Ted> as that presumes which implementation groups are interested,
Ted> or delays forward progress until a group that does not work
Ted> in that mode produces an example implementation that meets
Ted> the test. Even if this is an informal requirement (lore
Ted> vs. spec.), this could discourage those working for
Ted> advancement.
my assumption is that our standards that are useful tend to be useful
in open-source environments. And that people should at least stop and
think if there is not an OS implementation of a standard. We might
find a few areas (MPLS and CCAMP spring to mind) where it is quite
clear that no such desire to implement exists even though there are
significant other implementations. And that we'd want to think about
why there was no OS implementation if it happened there was none. By
think about I mean provide some explanation for and consider whether
there is a deeper problem.
>> Basically I'd like to start by getting to a point where we
>> assume that open-source implementations are a goal and that we
>> explicitly decide that they are not a requirement in contexts
>> where that makes sense.
>>
>> I suspect we would run into resistance building that consensus
>> but it might be worth trying.
Ted> I'm a little confused as to the antecedent of "we" in the
Ted> statement above. I assume you mean you and Simon, but that
Ted> you are basically speaking for yourself. If you mean "we" in
Ted> some other sense (especially if you mean it to include the
Ted> IESG, which some might infer from your role), it is not
Ted> clear.
We == those interested in this idea. I'm sorry that I failed to make
it clear I'm speaking only for myself and especially not for the IESG.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf