On 04/08/2016 04:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
>> That said, I'm not sure we have a concrete proposal for a thing to do.
> if you write a draft and have running example code, you are accused to
> be just coming to the ietf for a rubber stamp (cf. sidr). if you have a
> draft and no code, idiots such as i comment that the rubber meets the
> sky. if you have code but no draft, you're a undisciplined hacker,
> unless we're in an even numbered year where we're trying to snuggle up
> to code.
> imiho, we would benefit from making it easier to come in with a draft
> and code, the first above.
+5.
And make it easier to do:
1) Informational on running code.
That is IMHO one of the main attractions of the Independent Submission RFC
Stream.
(Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Independent Submission Editorial Board.)
Brian
2) Spin to 2.0 for Standards Track.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software
Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-