ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Running code, take 2

2012-12-14 07:19:42

Hi Yaron,

I'm glad to see more discussion of this general topic.

On 12/12/2012 07:31 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi,

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 believe this can achieve the same goal, which is to apply preferred
treatment to protocols that have been implemented, and with a lot less
process overhead. It also leaves much more leeway for individual working
groups to apply their own procedures and customs.

Similarly to Stephen's proposal, we can use a process experiment (per
RFC 3933) to gauge the effectiveness of this one.

I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list.

Looks fine to me and I reckon that doing one or both of these
experiments in parallel or series could make sense depending on
what happens when/if they're last called. In contrast with
some others who've posted, I do think doing process experiments
is a good thing and we've not done enough to even know if 3933
can work or not - I only counted 4 or 5 RFCs that seem to refer
to 3933.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I just posted -02 of my proposal. [1]

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-02



    Yaron