Subject: RE: [Sip] Re: Running code

From: "Bob Natale" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 02:57:33 -0500

Hi,

I agree with Joel's caution here.  After all (speculating on intent a
bit, I admit): it's "rough consensus and running code", not "running
code and rough consensus" nor (in Joel's counter-productive reference)
"rough consensus about running code".

I've always interpreted the maxim as "rough consensus and [then] running
code" or "rough consensus supported by running code".  Either way, we
get to the "rough consensus" first, at least logically.

Cheers,
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:50 PM
To: [email-masked]; 'sipping'
Subject: [Sip] Re: Running code 

[Sorry, I couldn't let this go without comment.  I have trimmed the CC
so the leadership won't receive 3 copies.]

For SIP, maybe the problem space is in a state where that is practical
(although I doubt it.)

For many other working groups, it would be really strange to require
running code before accepting a draft for discussion.  For example, in
ForCES we needed to agree on what the structure of the ForCES protocol
needed to be.  Requiring people to implement ideas that we wanted to
discuss would have made it very hard to have clear discussion.
Particularly since we had not agreed on the underlying transport, so it
would have been easy to confuse transport properties with application
properties.

In general, with new work it is pretty hard to require implementation of
the early stage ideas.  It can sometimes even be counter-productive.
Efforts to provide early implementations of alternative management
structures seemed to cause those emplementors to become wedded to their
particularl approach.

I definitely like implementation.  The routing area is in fact
increasing the emphasis on implementation before standardization.  But
implementation before I-D seems a mistake.  We usually ask folks to
write up an I-D on anything they want discussed.  And in most working
groups, if the topic is on charter and the approach looks sane, the
document is often made a WG document to create a clear trackable state
for the work.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 06:34 PM 3/3/2006, Dean Willis wrote:
>>Documents that are only proposals or concepts, but are not backed up 
>>by running code can be very well exchaged as e-mails on the various 
>>lists.
>>In this way, WG I-D overload would disappear and Dean's problem will 
>>be solved.
>>
>>If there is no running code, discussions on e-mail is just fine.
>>
>>Thanks, Henry
>
>Lovely idea, but needs to be part of the IETF process, not the SIP 
>process. The New Track working group, perhaps?

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
[email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip