> Hi Ned,
> On 01/16/2013 03:40 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> Actually I think you make a couple of great points that ought be
> >> mentioned in the draft about implementability. (No chance you'd
> >> have time to craft a paragraph? If not, I'll try pinch text from
> >> above:-) Now that you point it out like that, I'm irritated at
> >> myself for not having included it already! (It rings bells for me.)
> >
> > OK, I think the place for a new paragraph is just before the last
> > paragraph of section 2. How about something along the lines of:
> >
> > A complete and correct specification is not in and of itself a guarantee
> > of
> > high quality implementations. What may seem like minor details can
> > increase implementation difficulty substantially, leading to
> > implementations
> > that are fragile, contain unnecessary restrictions, or do not scale well.
> > Implementation experience has the potential to catch these problems
> > before
> > the specification is finalized and becomes difficult to change.
> >
> > You might also want to change the final paragraph of the section a bit in
> > light of the addition; I'll leave that to you to work out.
> Did that, working copy at [1]. Lemme know if there're any changes
> that are needed.
It looks good to me.
I also note that there's a reference to interoperability in the fourth
paragraph of section 1. Perhaps changing
For example, a framework draft will not be a good candidate because
implementations of such documents are not, of themselves,
interoperable.
to something like
For example, a framework draft will not be a good candidate because
implementations of such documents are incomplete and therefore do
not demonstrate either implementability or interoperability of an
entire protocol.
would be in order.
Ned
