Thanks folks for engaging in the discussion.
I think the points about datestamping the information, and marking what
draft version it relates to (or RFC if it is implementing the RFC and we
are tracking on a wiki) are very good points.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/25/2022 6:34 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Joel,
I think it is a great idea to keep track of the implementation and interop
status of the Standards Track work that spring produces. My thoughts are very
much in line with what Adrian said below in that I would certainly not like
this potentially stale, out-of-date and misleading information to be included
in a published RFC. I have a couple of additional points to make:
* If the WG has consensus to continuously track implementations, I think one
potential way to do so would be a WG wiki which could be referenced in the
published RFC.
* Even as the draft is making its way through the IETF process it might be
important to keep track of the freshness of the implementation data and this
requires recording such info. I had brought this up during the IESG eval of the
draft that became RFC7942
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/ballot/#draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis_suresh-krishnan)
but did not push it since the goal of RFC7942 was not to continuously track
implementations. Here are the two items I had proposed:
1) A datestamp for each implementation to denote when the implementation was
added to the draft or was last updated (to determine freshness)
2) Draft version number that was implemented (as drafts can change
significantly during the wg process)
Thanks
Suresh
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 1:58 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for bringing this to the WG for discussion.
As one of the authors of RFC 7942 I want to comment on the idea of including
this “snapshot” status at the time of publication within the published RFC. I
think this changes the purpose of collecting the information and making it
public. It moves from being information that is valuable for assessing the
status of the work, to something that verges on a marketing statement. In
particular, companies that are able to get into the RFC reporting their
implementations will, forever, be named in the RFC as known implementations,
while other companies (perhaps those who waited for consensus before
implementing) will be excluded. This seems wrong, and while the text you
propose to include might make it clear that it is just a snapshot at the time
of publication, it will still be there as a public record. The IETF is not a
proxy marketing machine, and this information is not useful for the technical
content of the RFC.
When we wrote 7942, we thought about this quite a lot. That led us to include:
Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of
this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before
publication, as well as the reference to RFC 7942.
But, at the same time, we described other places this information could be
stored and updated, if that is what the working group wants to do.
Personally, I don’t think it is the IETF’s job to record implementation status
after publication of an RFC, as this becomes very loaded and commercially
sensitive. It could be hard to police, and could become contentious.
So, in summary:
- I support the idea of capturing the implementations status of the SPRING work
during its development and at the time of publication request.
- I am strongly opposed to retaining that information in published RFCs.
- I support am neutral on idea of continuing to record implementation status
after publication if there is WG consensus.
Thanks,
Adrian
From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: 03 August 2022 15:45
To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and
interoperability
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
_______________________________________________
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
