Part of Improving IETF Electronic Diversity [was: RFC 6234 code]

I believe this is all part of improving the IETF Electronic Diversity 
picture. Just like we have to deal with greater people personal 
globalization diversity issues, there is also greater technology and 
legal diversity issues to deal with. So many tools, so many languages, 
so many OSes, so many devices and communications API platforms, where 
are the proposals for better, new "IETF Global Commons?"  Guidelines for 
technical writing for the new world engineers to use, etc.
For me, when I saw this RFC, the things crossed my mind:

- I have trouble with the licensing statement. The RFC describes public 
domain technology.  It requires passing this thru your lawyer(s) to see 
if it can used in our commercial product lines.
- Far too big to distribute via a RFC.  Provide a link to some RFC site. 
Note, I'm just saying in general. I did not read in detail if
the RFC already included links to the official source code.

- Because it was too big, it requires a stripper/parser, although a good 
power programmer can quickly macro-clean it up.  The RFCSTRIP tool, 
well, what language is that? I'm not an *nix person. So this adds to the 
complexity for the Windows shops to get at these hashing functions.  Of 
course, its a piece of cake for a sharp programmer, but even the 
sharpest knives eventually get dull.
--
HLS


On 6/28/2013 4:53 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I'd actually tried the authors, but no reply yet (only a few days). I also 
> tried the RFC Editor thinking they might have e.g. XML from which extraction 
> might have been easier, but also no response yet. And I had found several 
> libraries, but not the RFC code. I can't see any suggestion that the library 
> you indicate includes that code, it also bills itself as a C++ library, which 
> the RFC code is not (and also not what I want, but that's not a subject for 
> this list).
>
> But the broader point is that if it's worth the IETF publishing the code as an 
> RFC, it's worth making the code available straightforwardly.
>
> For me, a thanks to Tony Hansen, who did the extraction for me. (That makes me 
> feel a little guilty, why should he do my work I could have done?) But the 
> point of posting on this list was to say that the code should be available so 
> that each person wanting that code doesn't have to do that again.
>
> Christopher