Thanks Joel, I understand your reasoning and I think that deferring to 7942 is a good default position. No need to restate what is in that RFC.
However :-) In two places you have "the draft / RFC" and that appears to imply that this guidance applies to implementation sections carried in RFCs. I think you could safely change both occurrences to "the draft" and I would then shut up and go and do some real work. Cheers, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> Sent: 14 October 2022 13:56 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] SPRING WG Implementation Information Policy We removed all references to retaining the material in the published RFC. And emphasized that we are following RFC 7942, being explicit about where we are varying from it. This is to align with the rough consensus of the WG not to retain the material in RFCs. If we put in text about not retaining it, people later who had not seen the discussion would find that confusing. Yours, Joel On 10/14/2022 6:27 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > 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
