Thanks. Sorry, we missed those edits. Will make them on the wiki.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/14/2022 9:28 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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
