Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit : > Hi Adrian, > > I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero > implementation effort.
disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data tracker. Marc. > If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal. > > Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my > proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. > RFCs are forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not > appropriate in an RFC. > > Thanks, > Yaron > > On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> I'm interested in this idea. >> >> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is >> frozen >> in time when a document goes to RFC. >> >> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to IPR >> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation >> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable and >> linked >> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC. >> >> They could record the document version that has been implemented, and also >> allow >> space for other notes. >> >> Adrian (Just thinking aloud) >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>> Alessandro Vesely >>> Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58 >>> To: ietf@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 >>> >>> On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote: >>>> >>>> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to >>>> Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document, >>>> in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for their >>>> protocol, as well as their interoperability. >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list. >>> >>> As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status" >>> sections, including IPR info. I don't think anything forbids to add >>> such sections, if the authors wish. I'd add a count of the number of >>> I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria. >>
