Re: Running code, take 2
2012-12-13 15:52:28
Hi Randy,
the RPKI report is very impressive and probably very useful. But:
- Other areas (e.g. the Security Area, where I'm coming form) may not
have this tradition.
- For "smaller" protocols the gain does not justify the effort of
writing a separate implementation report. A section in the base document
is much simpler to maintain.
- And as I noted earlier on this thread, a wiki is a good alternative,
provided everyone reading the base draft is referred to the
"implementation status" wiki. They should not have to guess that one
exists, or to search for it.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 12/13/2012 08:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
don't we already have a way of doing this? implementation reports, e.g.
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-01.txt
a wiki can be more easily curated, though has authorization challenges.
could you clue me into how the different modes would facilitate progress
of the base document(s)?
randy
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, Alessandro Vesely
- RE: Running code, take 2, Adrian Farrel
- Re: Running code, take 2, Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2, Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2, Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2, Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2, Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2,
Yaron Sheffer <=
- Re: Running code, take 2, John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2, Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2, Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2, John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Running code, take 2, Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Running code, take 2, John C Klensin
|
|
|