Melinda Shore wrote: > On 3/4/09 12:17 PM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petit...@acm.org> wrote: >> Now, I know by experience that even significant contributions to an >> I-D does not guarantee you a place in the acknowledgement section. >> So what is the incentive into developing code that 1) will probably >> be obsoleted by the next version of the I-D and 2) will not be >> acknowledged at all in contributing to the improvement of the protocol? > > I tend to assume people will be interested in a protocol > for some other reasons than garnering acknowledgements > and fluffing their resumes, and those other reasons will > presumably be sufficient motivation. Implementing something > will tend to be a pretty good way to find bugs, inefficiencies, > or other problems with a protocol specification. If you're > interested in kudos, take the issues you find to the mailing > list rather than directly to the author. > > I'm pretty surprised by this argument. >
I assumed that acknowledgement would be a good enough incentive for developers to contribute early implementations, but you seem to think that there would be other reasons. The fact is that feedback from early implementations is rare, so what other reasons do you think early implementers would have? Cannot be money - early implementations are very likely to become obsolete at the next version of the I-D, and so have to be rewritten. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Home: m...@petit-huguenin.org Work: petit...@acm.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
