Hi Fred,
I'm in complete agreement with you, but... :-)
Before investing in a common set of tools to archive implementation information,
I wanted to see whether there was *any* intention to make that information
available.
Thus, this is a baby-step towards the end result that you and I wold like to
see. If, after our 18 month experiment, it turns out that no-one wants to record
implementation information, we will know where we stand (or sit). OTOH, if there
is good support for the idea, we can move to the next stage.
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Fred
Baker (fred)
Sent: 26 April 2013 17:08
To: Yaron Sheffer
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; tools-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Discussion
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt>
(Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to
Experimental RFC
On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer
<yaronf(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
- There should be long-term commitment to maintain the data. I think we
simply don't have such processes in place, and personally I don't want to even
try
to deal with this problem. I suspect that we'd have to eventually use paid
help if
we are serious about keeping the information current, and I don't even think
it
would be worth the cost.
Understood. That said, we already have working group wikis and errata. I don't
want to trivialize the investment, but it seems like we have at least part of
the
infrastructure already. I'm asking what will be the best for IETF discussion
and for
maintenance of the information. I suspect it's something we can do if we
choose
to.=