Subject: draft-sheffer-running-code-03 published

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:27:25 +0300

Hi,

we have just published a new revision of this draft, defining a new, 
optional Implementation Status section to be included in Internet 
Drafts: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-03

We believe this document is almost ready for IETF last call; in fact 
this idea has already been adopted by a few I-D authors. Any comments 
would be appreciated.

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:41:43 -0400

> optional Implementation Status section to be included in Internet Drafts:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-03

It does look mostly ready, though I think the primary addition in -03,
the recommended boilerplate, needs something.

As I said many times in response to Stephen's proposal, I vehemently
object to the idea that any "reward" is being given.  The point here
is that specs with implementations have some greater level of evidence
of solidity than those without, and we're considering that evidence in
our evaluations -- we not rewarding them for having it, but giving
them the consideration they deserve.

When the word "reward" was only in the abstract, it was less
bothersome; now you're proposing that it be echoed in the boilerplate
of the Implementation Status section of every document that does this.
 Please, no.

I suggest this change to the Abstract, Introduction, and Section 2.1:

OLD
   This will allow
   reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
   that have the benefit of running code and potentially reward the
   documented protocols by treating the documents with implementations
   preferentially.

NEW
   This will allow
   reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
   that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code as
   evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has made the
   implemented protocols more mature.

END

And then a small point in 2.1:

   Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of
   this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before
   publication, as well as the reference to [RFC Editor: replace by a
   reference to this document].

Why not include that directly in the recommended boilerplate?:

OLD
   The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation
   Status section:

      This section records the status of known implementations of the
      protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
      this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC
      Editor: replace by a reference to this document].  According to
      [RFC Editor: replace by a reference to this document], "this will
      allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to
      documents that have the benefit of running code and potentially
      reward the documented protocols by treating the documents with
      implementations preferentially".  Furthermore, "It is up to the
      individual working groups to use this information as they see
      fit".

NEW
   The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation
   Status section:

      This section records the status of known implementations of the
      protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
      this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in
      [RFCXXXX].  According to [RFCXXXX], "This will allow reviewers
      and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that
      have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code
      as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has
      made the implemented protocols more mature." Furthermore, "It is
      up to the individual working groups to use this information as they
      see fit".

      [RFC Editor: Please remove this entire section and the reference
      to RFCXXXX.]

   [RFC Editor: The "RFC Editor" note above is there as example text.
   Please do not take action on it, and leave it in the document. Instead,
   replace "RFCXXXX" by a reference to this document, and remove this
   note.]

END

Barry

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 15:58:33 +0100

Hi,

[snipping out some useful points]

We had considered what you suggest below, and indeed I typed it up in a recent
email to Yaron before deleting it again.

Yes, we could do what you suggest, but as you found, it requires a kind of
meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and confusing.

If you feel strongly that something needs to be included in the boilerplate we
can look again. but since it is only suggested rather than mandated boilerplate,
maybe it is enough to ask for a note to be added rather than including the text
of the note in the boilerplate?

A

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:16:53 -0400

> meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and confusing.

I don't know: I don't think the meta-note is a problem.  Perhaps you
might pass it by Sandy and see if she thinks it's reasonable and
understandable.

> of the note in the boilerplate?

Sure, it's enough... though I really do think that if you're
recommending boilerplate, you should recommend complete boilerplate.

But, no, this isn't a "DISCUSS" level thing.  :-)

Barry