ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Running code, take 2

2012-12-13 09:05:04

Le 2012-12-13 à 10:00, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :

Hi Marc,

I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going to 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) will 
have a direct way to check out on the implementation status.

This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it's linked 
from the Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF 
insiders will be aware of it.


sure. Let me restart:
- I like Adrian proposal: instead of in RFC, put it online within our site
- but you wrote: requires implementation effort.
- I replied: well, phase 1 (of put it online within our site) can be done with 
almost zero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say not that 
big) for implementation/tools.

Regards, Marc.

Thanks,
      Yaron

On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:

Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :

Hi Adrian,

I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero 
implementation effort.

disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data 
tracker.

Marc.


If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal.

Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my 
proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. 
RFCs are forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not 
appropriate in an RFC.

Thanks,
    Yaron

On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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.

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.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>