Re: Running code, take 2

Hi Randy,

I don't know who's "we" in your question.

My proposal is aimed at an earlier stage in the process, when the WG 
needs to evaluate a draft before it becomes a WG document and later, 
during WGLC. During these stages, information about implementation 
status is very useful, even if (as some have stated), it may not always 
be available.
As to the later stage (off topic), let me just give one example. Earlier 
today I sent a SecDir review where I said that a certain 1997 RFC is 
probably not implemented by anybody today. I may be right or I may be 
wrong, I don't have any solid data. But do you expect the author of that 
RFC to maintain an up-to-date implementation status wiki for 15 years 
after the RFC had been published? I don't.
Thanks,
        Yaron

On 12/14/2012 02:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > to clarify, my proposal only applies to Internet Drafts, and clearly
> > states that the implementation section should be removed from the
> > document before it is published as RFC.
> >
> > Formally, we don't want non-permanent stuff in RFCs. And realistically,
> > even if we had an implementation wiki, it is unlikely to be kept up to
> > date once the RFC is published.
> so, we act on implementation and interoperability data which are not
> kept?
>
> randy