Hi SM,
I have read every word in this document multiple times mainly in the
order they were written. :-)
Hmmm, you can't be sure what order we wrote them. You can only know what order
they are presented in :-)
In Section 1:
"The scope of the intended experiment is all Internet-Drafts whether
produced within IETF working groups, outside working groups but
intended for IETF consensus, or for publication on the Independent
Stream."
I don't think that it is up to the IETF to run experiments in the
Independent Submissions Stream. I suggest removing the text after
"IETF consensus".
I think you are right. Of course, individuals pushing drafts to the ISE could do
the same thing, but that is probably out of scope for us.
In Section 2:
"In addition, this section can contain information about the
interoperability of any or all of the implementations."
I found information about interoperability helpful in resolving
issues. Some arguments [1] are not backed by references. That makes
it difficult to make a determination.
Agreed. Some implementations and some interop is undocumented and we have to
take it "on trust".
We should probably say that giving references in support would be highly
desirable.
A good test would be to get feedback from people who has not
participated in the working group and who have implemented the
specification. It might highlight issues about document clarity,
whether a protocol is under-specified or over-specified, etc. I
understand that it is out of scope for draft-sheffer-running-code-04.
Understood.
What happens to the status of this document after 18 months?
I think that when we publish our analysis of results, this will either be
replaced with something firmer or moved to historic.
Cheers,
Adrian