Sure. Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Yaron, > >Would you be willing to add this to your I-D? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 13 December 2012 15:12 >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'; [email protected]; 'Alessandro Vesely' >> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 >> >> +1. >> >> Yaron >> >> On 12/13/2012 05:10 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> > How about... >> > >> > Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as >a >starting >> > point. Duplicate documentation in wiki may be useful and provide a >place to >> > track text for inclusion in the next revision. >> > >> > When/if inclusion in the I-D gets messy, replace text in I-D with >pointer to >> > wiki. >> > >> > When/if experiment looks like a success, replace all above with >data tracker >> > tool and allow it to persist for RFCs. >> > >> > Adrian >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: 13 December 2012 15:05 >> >> To: Yaron Sheffer >> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Alessandro Vesely' >> >> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 2012-12-13 à 10:00, Yaron Sheffer a écrit : >> >> >> >>> Hi Marc, >> >>> >> >>> I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going >to >> >> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) >will >> > have a >> >> direct way to check out on the implementation status. >> >>> >> >>> This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if >it's >> > linked from the >> >> Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF >insiders >will >> > be >> >> aware of it. >> >>> >> >> >> >> sure. Let me restart: >> >> - I like Adrian proposal: instead of in RFC, put it online within >our site >> >> - but you wrote: requires implementation effort. >> >> - I replied: well, phase 1 (of put it online within our site) can >be done >with >> > almost >> >> zero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say >not that >big) >> > for >> >> implementation/tools. >> >> >> >> Regards, Marc. >> >> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Yaron >> >>> >> >>> On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi Adrian, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires >zero >> >> implementation effort. >> >>>> >> >>>> disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget >within data >> >> tracker. >> >>>> >> >>>> Marc. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section >(according to >> my >> >> proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is >deleted. >RFCs >> > are >> >> forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not >appropriate >> > in an >> >> RFC. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> Yaron >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >>>>>> I'm interested in this idea. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a >document >> is >> >> frozen >> >>>>>> in time when a document goes to RFC. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something >similar >> to >> >> IPR >> >>>>>> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where >> implementation >> >>>>>> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be >searchable >> >> and linked >> >>>>>> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> They could record the document version that has been >implemented, >> and >> >> also allow >> >>>>>> space for other notes. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Adrian (Just thinking aloud) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf >> Of >> >>>>>>> Alessandro Vesely >> >>>>>>> Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58 >> >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative >to >> >>>>>>>> Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to >> document, >> >>>>>>>> in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for >their >> >>>>>>>> protocol, as well as their interoperability. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> [...] >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this >list. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation >Status" >> >>>>>>> sections, including IPR info. I don't think anything forbids >to add >> >>>>>>> such sections, if the authors wish. I'd add a count of the >number of >> >>>>>>> I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success >criteria. >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> > -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
