Subject: "Running code" draft

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:22:56 +0200

Hi,

Adrian and I published a draft [1] before the holidays that suggests to 
include an Implementation Status section in I-Ds, where any extant (even 
partial) implementations of the specification are described. The goal is 
to increase working group members' confidence in the maturity level of 
the spec, to motivate people to implement drafts before publication, and 
several other lesser benefits.

We would like to encourage people on this list to include Implementation 
Status sections in working group drafts (this is no process change: 
anybody can include ANY additional sections in drafts). We would 
appreciate comments on this proposal from this list, and would be even 
happier to hear reports of your experience implementing this idea in 
your WG.

Thanks,
     Yaron

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:45:12 -0800 (PST)

This seems like a reasonable proposal to me. The one (very minor)
point is that I would simply call for the section to be marked as
"remove before publication" rather than calling for the authors to do it
manually at some point. The RFC Editors handles such removals routinely
for things like "changes since" sections.

				Ned

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:08:19 -0000

Good catch, Ned.

We can add that to the next revision.

Hoping to see some running code examples of implementation of this I-D soon :-)

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ned
> Freed
> Sent: 09 January 2013 21:45
> To: Yaron Sheffer
> Cc: WG Chairs
> Subject: Re: "Running code" draft
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:21:47 -0800

On 1/9/2013 1:45 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> This seems like a reasonable proposal to me.

+1

 >  The one (very minor)
> manually at some point.

+1

Tidbits:

1.   While I understand the Procrustean need to label this a "process 
experiment" it doesn't really involve process as much as a standardized 
form and a standardized section in Drafts.  I think the document would 
be a tad clearer to have the primary descriptive text characterize this 
as standardizing a reporting section.

2.   The title also would be better if it did not promise such a 
grandiose effect as improving consensus.  Keep things modest and direct, 
such as:

      Improving Awareness of Running Code

3.   Rather than specifying that a wiki "replaces" the I-D section, I 
suggest having the reference to the wiki be the content of the section.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:28:44 -0000

Hi Dave,

Thanks for reading.

> > This seems like a reasonable proposal to me.

Excellent! Hoping to see some chairs encouraging their editors/authors to give
it a try.

> > "remove before publication" rather than calling for the authors to do it

Yup. Yaron and I will fold that in.

> as standardizing a reporting section.

Ah, legacy text from last year when we thought it might have to be run as a 3933
process experiment.

We will polish this rough edge.

Thanks for suggesting I may have Procrustean leanings. Could I have this as a
framed certificate?

>       Improving Awareness of Running Code

Point taken.

> suggest having the reference to the wiki be the content of the section.

Indeed. The substantive content of the section will move to the wiki, but yes,
the section will still remain and will point to the wiki.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:38:29 -0800

On 1/17/2013 10:28 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> form and a standardized section in Drafts.
...
> Thanks for suggesting I may have Procrustean leanings. Could I have this as a

As enticing as an actual ad hominem reference always is, even in the 
midst of my making such a nit-picking document criticism, I didn't mean 
'you' as much as 'us'.  The issue I see is IETF-level and not 
author-level...

So there!

> the section will still remain and will point to the wiki.

Makes sense, but I read the current language as implying otherwise.  Not 
a big deal.

d/

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:50:22 +0100

Folks,

On this draft there is also a case informational case that is not covered. When we've had two competing solutions and one have been chosen to be published as standards track, IETF has traditionally been willing to publish the other as Informational given that there is running code  available. 

Might be worth mentioning. 

/Loa

Skickat från min iPhone

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:58:11 +0200

I agree. The Implementation Status section provides information that may 
help WG chairs and Area Directors in deciding on alternative publication 
venues, when the Standards Track option is not available.

Thanks,
	Yaron