Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >> IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is >> certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, >> mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the >> design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so >> forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there >> were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. >> It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. >> > > tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"? > that's certainly better than one implementation, especially if implemented on multiple platforms. though still, I think, this is not sufficient in general.
again, I'm biased because I've heard too many arguments of the form "we have running code for <deficient protocol>, and it's already (somewhat) deployed so we have to approve it as a standard without changing it". Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
