ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations

2016-03-09 13:21:06
On 09/03/2016 23:16, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
Hi,

good discussion starter.

Two comments:

1) Open Source / Hackathon:

The objective of the IETF should IMO be to develop open, high-quality 
specifications (in a timely manner...). We have been working with running 
code for ensuring implementability and interoperability. That's still a good 
thing, however, we could think about how we can make better use of Open 
Source for the specification process. (Following up on Dave Ward's lunch 
presentation some IETF meetings back.)

For example, some IRTF RGs are working with reference implementations (of 
their core protocols) to promote experimentation, more research, future 
adoption.

Would it make sense to promote similar models for the protocol specification 
process in IETF WGs (beyond the Hackathon concept)?

I was tempted to write "Well, Duh!" but maybe this *isn't* obvious to 
everybody. So yes, there is no doubt
that running code is a vital adjunct to successful standards work.

Potential benefits:

- more running code -- better specification quality

Very specifically, WGs where somebody can say "When writing the code, I 
couldn't understand X",
or "When testing the code, I found that Y is wrong" produce better 
specifications.

- FOSS as standards reference implementations -- promoting standards adoption

Perhaps equally important: providing a basis for interoperability tests.

BTW the choice of OS license is important: pick the wrong one and some people 
aren't
allowed to look at your code.

- potentially: speeding up the process

Maybe not speeding up the IETF process itself, but certainly speeding up the 
time
to market (or the time to deciding the whole thing was a bad idea).

    Brian

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>