Whoops, I meant that the draft and implementation match, sorry about that. Cheers, Andy
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, > > Your goal is laudatory, but the devil will be in the details. For example, > you wrote: > > Note also that this experiment just needs an implementation that > makes it possible for the WG chairs and responsible AD to verify (to > the extent they chose) that the implementation matches the draft. > > Will this require WG chairs and/or document shepherds to do a code review > to verify that the implementation and code match? A better criteria might > be that there be at least two independent implementations that successfully > interoperate. That would also show greater WG interest than just a single > individual or organization. > > Open source code is a plus, but shouldn't be a requirement, as such a > requirement might discourage some vendors from implementing. > > Thanks, > Andy > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> >> >> Title : A Fast-Track way to Proposed Standard with >> Running Code >> Author(s) : Stephen Farrell >> Filename : draft-farrell-ft-01.txt >> Pages : 9 >> Date : 2012-12-03 >> >> Abstract: >> This memo proposes an optional fast-track way to get from a working >> group document to IESG review that can be used for cases when a >> working group chair believes that there is running code that >> implements a working group Internet-Draft. The basic idea is to do >> all of working group last call, IETF last call and area director >> review during the same two week period, and to impose a higher >> barrier for comments that might block progress. The motivation is to >> have the IETF process have a built-in reward for running code, >> consistent with the IETF's overall philosophy of running code and >> rough consensus. This version is solely proposed by the author (and >> not the IESG) to attempt to ascertain if there is enough interest in >> this to warrant trying out the idea as an RFC 3933 process >> experiment. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-01 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrell-ft-01 >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announceInternet-Draft>directories: >> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >> > >
