Interesting. I was looking at bullet 4 in section 3, which reads "At
least two [implementations] must be written independently."
Not a big deal.
And yes, I think a sentence or two on other value in implementation
reports would be helpful. My thought is that there are many cases where
the BCP described here is all that is useful, and some cases where a
longer term record is useful.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/22/16 2:01 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for your time.
The introduction describes RFC1264 as requiring at least one
implementation. The general requirement in RFC 1264 is multiple
implementations, at least two independent. While it is a minor issue,
this document should characterize RFC 1264 more carefully.
I'm not opposed to the change you suggest but I quote from section 4.0 of RFC
1264
| 4) One or more implementations must exist.
In the Alternative Formats section, it strikes me that there is an
alternative that is sometimes useful that is de-emphasised by the text
as written. If there has been significant insight gained from the
implementations, that may be useful to capture in a longer-lived
context. In that case, an RFC describing implementation may still be
useful. I would appreciate it if the authors would consider adding a
short paragraph to this effect.
Oh, it was certainly not our intention to persuade people not to add
documentation about implementations. I don't think the current text
de-emphasises anything (unless you consider that not talking about something is
de-emphasis). It would not hurt us to note how implementation reports have often
been written and how the IESG currently recommends that they are written.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
