RE: Running code, take 2

Sure.

Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:

> Yaron,
>
> Would you be willing to add this to your I-D?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
> > Sent: 13 December 2012 15:12
> > To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
> > Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'Alessandro Vesely'
> > Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
> >
> > +1.
> >
> >      Yaron
> >
> > On 12/13/2012 05:10 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > > How about...
> > >
> > > Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as
> a
> starting
> > > point. Duplicate documentation in wiki may be useful and provide a
> place to
> > > track text for inclusion in the next revision.
> > >
> > > When/if inclusion in the I-D gets messy, replace text in I-D with
> pointer to
> > > wiki.
> > >
> > > When/if experiment looks like a success, replace all above with
> data tracker
> > > tool and allow it to persist for RFCs.
> > >
> > > Adrian
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:marc(_dot_)blanchet(_at_)viagenie(_dot_)ca]
> > > > Sent: 13 December 2012 15:05
> > > > To: Yaron Sheffer
> > > > Cc: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
> > > > 'Alessandro Vesely'
> > > > Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.