Subject: Re: Where's the code (was: Input solicited: IETF problempinpointing at the plenary?)

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:33:40 -0700

I'm skeptical that anyone could produce numbers that we'd collectively
interpret in approximately the same way. So....I concur with Harald. Its
a rathole to treat this as a detailed topic of discussion.

I'm not disputing the notion that things sometimes are specified which
are very difficult or even impossible to implement. Nor am I disputing
that
such a phenomenon makes interoperability of implementations difficult
(or at least slow) to
achieve.

However, I believe we have to recognize it as a notion
and not something that you're likely to get hard data
on. Thus if you're going to do anything to mitigate
the negative consequences that may or may not occur, that something
which you do has to be similar to what Harald suggested.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

http://www.dsi-consulting.com/

>>> Frank Kastenholz <[email-masked]> 10/31/02 7:22 AM >>>
At 06:51 AM 10/31/2002 +0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>this particular thread is probably a rathole, and we should claw back
to the higher levels.....the identified problem is, I think, that we
think there are cases where things go to Proposed Standard specifying
things that can't work.
>One way to avoid that is to insist that someone try it before
submission.

How many instances have there been of a proposed standard specifying
things
that can't work? Can you cite drafts? 

I'm not saying that this isn't a problem. I am saying that I don't know
if it's a problem or how big the problem is, so I'd like some numbers.

Frank Kastenholz