Hi Joel, chairs. Thanks for working on this.
Can I ask, just for clarification, what the conclusion is on whether this section is going to remain in the document when it becomes an RFC. I find the text a little confusing because it talks about "an I-D [that] is ready for WG last call", but later talks about variations to 7942. 7942 is pretty clear about removing the section on publication as an RFC, yet your variation text says "the draft / RFC" a couple of times. Could you clarify, and if necessary tweak the wiki text. Many thanks. Adrian -----Original Message----- From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Sent: 10 October 2022 15:18 To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] SPRING WG Implementation Information Policy The WG call for this policy completed. The WG chairs reviewed the comments, and modified the policy accordingly. Below is the new text which applies from here on. This will get posted in a suitable place on the WG wiki. ------ For this working group, when an I-Ds is ready for WG last call it MUST have an implementation section based on, but somewhat more than, that mandated by RFC 7942 (BCP 205, Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section). We are asking that all items identified in section 2 of RFC 7942 be included. When information is not available, it is acceptable to say "not known". It is desirable if this section can be added earlier and maintained by the document editor for the benefit of the WG process. Authors are asked to collect information about implementations and include what they can find out when that information is available for public disclosure. Documents will not be blocked from publication if the authors fill in the section as "none report" or "does not apply" when they have made an effort to get information and not been able to. There are a couple of important additions to what is called for in RFC 7942. We have confirmed with leadership that these changes are acceptable in terms of IETF process: 1) Each implementation description SHOULD include either a statement that all MUST & SHOULD clauses in the draft / RFC are implemented, or a statement as to which ones are not implemented. If it does not include that, it MUST say that has been omitted. 2) each implementation description may include reports of what optional elements of the draft / RFC are implemented. Reports of interoperability testing are strongly encouraged. Including the reports in the document is preferred or alternatively in the SPRING wiki. This may include a reference to longer and more detailed testing reports available elsewhere. If there are no reports of interoperability tests, then the section MUST state that no such reports were received. Yours, Bruno, Jim, and Joel _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
