Hi -
From: Larry Masinter <masinter(_at_)adobe(_dot_)com>
Sent: Nov 9, 2013 5:17 AM
To: IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <C> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to
Informational RFC
I wrote various things about rough consensus and the implementors
and "those with implementations" in reaction to draft-resnick-on-consensus-06.
After discussion and more thought, I wanted to retract what
I said, and offer some specific comments on the draft.
Retraction:
"Running code" means it's the implementations (not necessarily
the implementors) that should carry the weight. Yes, for
protocols to be implemented the implementors (eventually)
have to agree, because otherwise the protocol doesn't get
implemented. But "running code" is really the code, and
not just the opinion of those who might write the code.
...
I have very mixed feelings about this. Yes, it is the way
some working groups function. However, implementors are
in the best position to comment on the how difficult it is
to implement the specification correctly, as well as how
elements of the specification contribute to (or reduce)
implementation complexity. Both of these have very real
consequences for interoperability, security, and ensuring
a diverse ecosystem of independent implementations. The
mere fact that someone was able to get something to run
as specified should not carry more weight than their
assessment of how much unnecessary pain or overhead (CPU,
memory, whatever) results from quirks of the specification.
Randy