Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with R

Perhaps my final comment on this.  Also cutting the thread down to
something readable.  Inline.
S.


On 1.14.2013 10:46 , "Stephen Farrell" 
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:

[...]



Yes, that's clearer. We're talking about two different continuums
(or continua:-), so either would work, and neither is important to
this draft. I'll make the change if there's enough support for it,
but as I guess you can see, this is an area where we won't get folks
to entirely agree. In this case, we don't need to, since the text
in question is just explanatory and has no significant impact on
the experiment at all.


Definitely my final comment on this topic:  I agree that the change has no
impact on the operation of the iETF under the draft.  IMO it simply fixes
a flaw of logic.  

[...]

[Š]
I'd have no problem adding text that encouraged some form of
independence though, if you'd like to provide some.


How about:

"If the source code has been developed independently of the authoring of
the draft (and ideally by non WG participants), it is likely that the
implementation and the draft match, and that pitfalls unaware developers
may find have been found and dealt with.  If, on the other hand, draft
author(s) and implementation developer(s) overlap, then it is sensible
to
scrutinize the draft more closely, both with respect to its match with
the
implementation and for assumptions that author/developer may have taken
for granted which warrant documentation in the draft."


That'd be no harm to add. I don't know that it improves the document
enough to bother though. I'll think about it, but let's see if anyone
else cares.


Thanks.

[...]


I'll see if I can come up with something better than "match" but
if you have text to suggest, that might help.


Trying:

"Match means that all, or substantially all, protocol mechanisms of the
draft are implemented, that no other code points are implemented that
would reasonably fall into the scope of the draft in question, that all
documented state machines are implemented and no other state machines,
and
so forth.  The over-the-wire behavior of the implementation and of the
draft should substantially match, including more subtle points such as
timing relationship of messages, .  Minor divergences in details
stemming
from unaligned development cycles of draft and implementation are
acceptable."


I like most of that, thanks. For now, I've added this to 2.1, let me
know if it works:

  We do not give a precise definition for "match" here but the intent
  is that all, or substantially all, protocol mechanisms of the draft
  are implemented, that the over-the-wire behavior of the
  implementation and of the draft should substantially match, including
  more subtle points such as timing relationship of messages, etc.
  Minor divergences in details stemming from unaligned development
  cycles of draft and implementation are acceptable.


Works for me.


Cheers,
S.

PS: There's a working draft at [1] in case that helps.

[1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/draft-farrell-ft-04.txt


Cheers,
S.


Please consider this.
Thanks,
Stephan
  

On 1.11.2013 08:21 , "Adrian Farrel" 
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:

Hi Alexa,

Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week
IETF
last
call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under
the
rules
of RFC 3933.

The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take
specific
actions
under certain circumstances in corner cases of the experiment. Could
you
please
have someone in the Secretariat look at the draft and comment on the
practicalities of the actions. Note that, at this stage, no changes
to
the tools
are proposed so any actions would require manual intervention (if the
experiment
were successful and resulted in permanent changes to IETF process we
might make
changes to the tools at some future time).

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-announce-
bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: 11 January 2013 15:15
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to
RFC
with

Running

Code) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
  <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally, 
comments
may
be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain 
the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a
working
   group document to IESG review.  It is provided as a process
   experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group
chairs
   believe that there is running code that implements a working
group
   Internet-Draft.  The motivation is to have the IETF process
   explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's
overall
   philosophy of running code and rough consensus.

   In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call,
and
   Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period.
   Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be
addressed
   during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes
   within two weeks.

   This experiment will run for one year.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC