Subject: RFC 6982: Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 16:38:18 +0100

Dear WG chairs,

During the IESG retreat this week, we discussed running code. We would 
like to bring your attention to this RFC: 6982, "Improving Awareness of 
Running Code: The Implementation Status Section" (experimental).
You can review section 4 for an explanation of the benefits.
Interestingly, out of the 1918 current drafts, _only _32 use that 
"Implementation Status" section.

Please advertise this capability within your WGs.

If you want to see examples, the 32 drafts are:

    draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-01.txt:
    draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02.txt:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-02.txt:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-03.txt:
    draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-07.txt:
    draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-02.txt:
    draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-02.txt:
    draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00.txt:
    draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-05.txt:
    draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-01.txt:
    draft-ietf-isis-mrt-00.txt:
    draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-03.txt:
    draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00.txt:
    draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-02.txt:
    draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04.txt:
    draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-00.txt:
    draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03.txt:
    draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05.txt:
    draft-ietf-tram-stun-origin-05.txt:
    draft-kong-eppext-bundling-registration-01.txt:
    draft-kouvelas-lisp-rloc-membership-01.txt:
    draft-li-isis-mrt-02.txt:
    draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-02.txt:
    draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-02.txt:
    draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-08.txt:
    draft-nottingham-safe-hint-06.txt:
    draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-08.txt:
    draft-petithuguenin-tram-stun-pmtud-00.txt:
    draft-templin-aerolink-52.txt:
    draft-yi-manet-reactive-jitter-04.txt:
    draft-zhu-rmcat-nada-06.txt:

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:10:00 +0100

As one of the authors of 6982 I would like some feedback. 
 
Thoughts from authors would be interesting, especially about "why not include this information?"
Thoughts from WG chairs would be valuable, especially about "did this information help you make any decisions?"
Thoughts from the IESG would be useful, especially about "did this information help you when advancing the document?"
 
I have my suspicions about answers to all three questions.
 
The authors of 6982 had agreed that we would report back on the experiment (possibly sooner than now). We talked briefly in Dallas about when would be the right time to do that and concluded that there is no pressing need - i.e., that we should let the experiment run on to gather more data. Indeed, it is possible that the original experiment time was not long enough to produce meaningful data.
 
We also discussed how this might fold into CodeMatch, but looking at the timeline for that project we thought that it was too early to know whether that would be possible.
 
Options for now appear to be:
- refine the experiment and continue
- let the experiment continue as is
- replace the experiment with a permanent, but optional feature
- replace the experiment with a permanent and mandatory feature
- scrap the experiment and clean the floor
 
Any continuation could be re-assessed in a year and/or when CodeMatch has got momentum.
 
Ciao,
Adrian
 
From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: 07 May 2015 16:38
To: WG Chairs
Subject: RFC 6982: Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section
 
Dear WG chairs,

During the IESG retreat this week, we discussed running code. We would like to bring your attention to this RFC: 6982, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section" (experimental).
You can review section 4 for an explanation of the benefits.
Interestingly, out of the 1918 current drafts, only 32 use that "Implementation Status" section.

---

From: "Adam W. Montville" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 12:10:56 -0500

Without (yet) having read 6982, I know at least one working group (mile) that has an “implementation report” draft [1], which seems to be in the same spirit of an “Implementation Status” section.  There may be others.

[1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-implementreport/ <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-implementreport/>

> On May 7, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 19:34:03 +0100

On 07/05/15 17:10, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Thoughts from authors would be interesting, especially about "why not
> include this information?" Thoughts from WG chairs would be valuable,
> especially about "did this information help you make any decisions?" 
> Thoughts from the IESG would be useful, especially about "did this
> information help you when advancing the document?"

I find documents with that section included useful, yes. And I'd be
for doing it for more time and/or declaring the experiment a victory.
I also agree about codematch.

S.

> The authors of 6982 had agreed that we would report back on the
> experiment (possibly sooner than now). We talked briefly in Dallas
> about when would be the right time to do that and concluded that
> there is no pressing need - i.e., that we should let the experiment
> run on to gather more data. Indeed, it is possible that the original
> experiment time was not long enough to produce meaningful data.
> 
> We also discussed how this might fold into CodeMatch, but looking at
> the timeline for that project we thought that it was too early to
> know whether that would be possible.
> 
> Options for now appear to be: - refine the experiment and continue -
> let the experiment continue as is - replace the experiment with a
> permanent, but optional feature - replace the experiment with a
> permanent and mandatory feature - scrap the experiment and clean the
> floor
> 
> Ciao, Adrian
> From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit
> Claise Sent: 07 May 2015 16:38 To: WG Chairs Subject: RFC 6982:
> Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status
> Section
> 
> Dear WG chairs,
> 
> During the IESG retreat this week, we discussed running code. We
> would like to bring your attention to this RFC: 6982, "Improving
> Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section"
> (experimental). You can review section 4 for an explanation of the
> benefits. Interestingly, out of the 1918 current drafts, only 32 use
> that "Implementation Status" section.
> 
> draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00.txt: draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-05.txt:
>  draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-01.txt: draft-ietf-isis-mrt-00.txt: 
> draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-03.txt: draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00.txt:
> draft-kouvelas-lisp-rloc-membership-01.txt: draft-li-isis-mrt-02.txt:
> draft-templin-aerolink-52.txt: draft-yi-manet-reactive-jitter-04.txt:
>  draft-zhu-rmcat-nada-06.txt: Regards, Benoit
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 08:58:12 +0200

Adrian,
> include this information?"
>
> Thoughts from WG chairs would be valuable, especially about "did this 
> information help you make any decisions?"
>
 From an IESG review point of view, yes this is useful information.
I find this section also useful when reviewing WG documents: the 
specifications with implementation experience prove more mature.

> about when would be the right time to do that and concluded that there 
> is no pressing need - i.e., that we should let the experiment run on 
> to gather more data. Indeed, it is possible that the original 
> the timeline for that project we thought that it was too early to know 
> whether that would be possible.
>
My preference would be for "let the experiment continues as is", and 
potentially, in the future,  "replace the experiment with a permanent, 
but optional feature" assuming that we see more occurrences of it ... 
which was the point behind the initial email.

Regards, Benoit
> *From:*WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of 
> *Benoit Claise
> *Sent:* 07 May 2015 16:38
> *To:* WG Chairs
> *Subject:* RFC 6982: Improving Awareness of Running Code: The 
> Implementation Status Section
>
> Dear WG chairs,
>
> like to bring your attention to this RFC: 6982, "Improving Awareness 
> of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section" (experimental).