Subject: Re: Connecting code (open source and proprietary) with IETF standards

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:42:42 +0200

Hi Kathleen,

On Monday, April 14, 2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Out of my work with the diversity effort and some observations from
> working with ISOC at the Grace Hopper Celebration, I thought it would be a
> good idea to more clearly demonstrate the connections between standards and
> running code.
>

Thanks for your efforts. IMHO I must add the importance of the analysis of
proposed standard when the running code or its results are not available to
IETF. IETF does not have connection reviews (i.e. analysis of
standard performance or expected results) between standards and running
code, that may mean low review quality. I think IETF is mostly just
following big companies without clear analysis or running code for its
own published standards. Companies may use IETF without clear results of
its proposals to IETF because IETF still does not require such analysis of
performance (I requested for one adopted WG proposal to
receive performance results of the proposal but IETF requests reviewers to
analyse otherwise the proposal is perfect).

With the theme on the list at the moment, it seems like a good time to put
> this idea out to a broad set of reviewers (IETF list) before moving
> forward.
>

Yes it is good. I am waiting for replies to your important input at least
from IETF editors that proposed standards, but they did not reply so far
(from April until August).

> The diversity list members and some others have contributed to the list of
> requested features for such a tool that would enable a social aspect to
> connecting working groups, drafts, and code (open source and proprietary).
>

I agree that there is no good connections in IETF. Connecting between
standards and code, or between standards and performance is important for
IETF standard users.

>
> The motivation was to create better connections with the open source
> community and to better show those relationships as well as to expose the
> IETF to researchers and students.  There are numerous connection points and
> benefits listed int eh attached proposal.  I look forward to your comments.
>
>
>
>
My overall comment on your proposal attached is below:

The proposal should include IETF editors, to be reached and guided. I think
they are the main problem of the disconnection mentioned in your message.
IETF should not follow companies that only propose standard without showing
performance or running code. I suggest all proposals for standards should
have performance expectations' inputs in the IETF, not only in companies
that proposed them.

Best Regards,

AB