Hi John,
Seems consistent with what is in the I-D at the moment. See section 3.
Thus, those who want to record the info in the I-D can do that, while those who
want to go straight to a wiki can do that (although we ask that the I-D has a
pointer to the wiki).
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John C
Klensin
Sent: 26 April 2013 17:51
To: Fred Baker (fred); 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 Friday, April 26, 2013 16:07 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)"
<fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Fred,
First, I agree with both the above and with your prior note
agreeing with the general idea and suggesting something more
"live" than a section of an I-D. Second, while I certainly see
the value, I would get nervous if we were to move significantly
toward a long-term, IETF-supported, official statement or
compendium of implementation status. At least unless pursued
with great caution [1], such a thing would raise some of the
same issues that going into the conformance testing business
does in terms of the perception of guarantees that a given
implementation is somehow "IETF approved".
Perhaps the right model would be to keep this material in I-Ds
(as the proposal suggests) to support the evolution and review
of specification documents, then to move it to a wiki or
equivalent that was clearly identified as unofficial and for the
convenience of the community and that was "maintained by the
IETF" only to the extent needed to minimize spam, libel, and
other nonsense.
It also occurs to me that an alternative to part of the
experiment (still consistent with it, IMO) would be to start the
wiki process earlier and use the I-Ds merely to snapshot the
wiki at various points to help in the review process. That
would give both the advantages of a continually-evolving list
and those of periodic stable snapshots.
Just a thought or two.
john
[1] Images of dragging along as small pack of lawyers,
albatross-like, are probably in order.