Ned Freed wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back
running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a
new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-petithuguenin-running-code-considerations-00.txt
There used to be a term for those who attempted to manipulate the shape
of the universe by manipulating the names in the Usenet hierarchy.
I get the same impression from people who want to manipulate IETF
behaviour by manipulating the shape of Internet-Drafts.
I do not see how you can have this impression, as the I-D does not
try to make implementations mandatory for Internet-Drafts - _that_
would be changing the IETF behavior.
On the contrary, that's exactly what it does. Quoting from the draft:
The "Running Code Considerations" section MUST be present in all
Internet-Draft and SHOULD be inserted after the Security
Considerations and IANA Considerations sections. This section MUST
be present even if the document does not describe an implementable
protocol and should contain in this case a text explaining why this
section is irrelevant. The RFC Editor can remove this "Running Code
Considerations" section before publication as RFC.
A "Running Code Considerations" section can be empty, this is the
reason of the last sentence (this is similar to what is done for the
IANA Consideration Section). If a protocol described in an I-D has
no implementation then the section is empty, and people can decide
to invest in this protocol using this information. This to say,
again, that the text does not implies that implementations are
mandatory, just that their existence must be documented in the I-D.
I'm already on record as oppossing the addition of such bureaucratic folderol
in other cases.
And while I'm a big believer in running code and always try to implement
what's
described in my drafts before calling them complete, I think this proposal is
an absolutely terrible idea.
What the document says is that
early implementers efforts should be rewarded by listing their name,
sponsors and access to their code as a thank you for helping improve
the protocol. That does not change the IETF behavior - at best that
will change the quality of IETF protocols.
You need to read the draft again because that is not what it says.
OK, I do not know what to say here. I read again the text, and
nowhere it is said that having an implementation is mandatory.
Documenting eventual implementations would be.
--
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: marc(_at_)petit-huguenin(_dot_)org
Work: petithug(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf