Greetings, all,
The idea put forth in this document seems quite useful, and the scope is
appropriate for a process experiment, so I support its publication.
I have only one comment on the content. In applying this to my own documents
and WGs, I'd tend to prefer the "alternate" mechanism described in section 3,
even without any of the conditions there necessarily applying.
A single reference to a more-easily updatable source like a wiki seems, in
general, to be easier to manage than a section in a document which may have an
irregular update schedule, especially as revision N of a document will
necessarily report on the status of non-author implementations of the protocol
as of revision N-1 or before. As the section is designed to be removed before
publication anyway, there's no issue with references to sources without proper
change control in the resulting RFC, and some WGs/communities may find it
useful to keep the implementation status portion of the wiki up and current
even after publication. So I'd reverse the sense of "preferred" and "alternate"
here, though that's probably just a matter of personal taste.
In any case, this is an experiment, so we should try out both inline
implementation status and implementation status by-reference, and see which
works best in which situations.
Best regards,
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-announce-
bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: 12 April 2013 22:57
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: <draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt> (Improving Awareness
of
Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status
Section'
<draft-sheffer-running-code-04.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 2013-05-10. 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 document describes a simple process that allows authors of
Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by
including an Implementation Status section. This will allow
reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running
code as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has
made the implemented protocols more mature.
The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of
Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for
their documents, and working groups are invited to think about
applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. The
authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this
experiment and to report them to the community.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.