Thank you Dhruv for reading and commenting on the policy. While I think
the implementation and interoperability section will apply to even most
informational documents, I am happy to allow the option of "does not
apply" to cover those cases when it truly doesn't.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/10/2022 6:17 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Joel,
One suggestion, apart from "none to report" it might be a good idea to
also have a "not applicable" option for the WG's informational and
architectural documents to clearly distinguish between the the case of
no implementation exist v/s applicable.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 8:14 PM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
SPRING WG:
At the suggestion of our AD, the WG Chairs have been discussing
whether it would be helpful to be more explicit, in I-Ds and RFCs
we produce, about the announced implementations and known
interoperability tests that have occurred. If the WG agrees, we
would like to institute and post on the WG wiki the following
policy. The period for discussion and comment runs until
9-Sept-2022, to allow for folks who are on summer break:
All I-Ds that reach WG last call shall have an implementation
section based on, but somewhat more than, that described in RFC
7942 (BCP 205,*Improving Awareness of Running Code: The
Implementation Status Section*). Authors are asked to collect
information about implementations and include what they can find
out when that information is available for public disclosure.
Documents will not be blocked from publication if the authors fill
in the section as "none report" when they have made an effort to
get information and not been able to.
There are a couple of important additions to what is called for in
RFC 7942. We have confirmed with leadership that these changes
are acceptable in terms of IETF process:
1) We will retain the implementation status section when the draft
is published as an RFC. In order to do so, the section will begin
with "this is the implementation status as reported to the
document editors as of <date>"
2) Each implementation description MUST include either a statement
that all MUST clauses in the draft / RFC are implemented, or a
statement as to which ones are not implemented.
3) each implementation description may include reports of what
optional elements of the draft / RFC are implemented.
Reports of interoperabiity testing are strongly encouraged.
Including the reports in the document is preferred. This may
include a reference to longer and more detailed testing reports
available elsewhere. If there are no reports of interoperability
tests, then the section MUST state that no such reports were received.
Yours,
Bruno, Jim, and Joel
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
