Re: Running code, take 2

Le 2012-12-13 à 09:16, Adrian Farrel a écrit :

> I'm interested in this idea.
>
> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is 
> frozen
> in time when a document goes to RFC.
>
> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to IPR
> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation
> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable and 
> linked
> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC. 
>
> They could record the document version that has been implemented, and also 
> allow
> space for other notes.

I like that idea.

Marc.

> Adrian (Just thinking aloud)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> > [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
> > Alessandro Vesely
> > Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58
> > To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
> >
> > On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> > > I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to
> > > Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document,
> > > in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for their
> > > protocol, as well as their interoperability.
> > >
> > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list.
> > As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status"
> > sections, including IPR info.  I don't think anything forbids to add
> > such sections, if the authors wish.  I'd add a count of the number of
> > I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria.