Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> > I would have little objection to requiring running code as a test of
> > feasibility of a new idea.  I would object strongly to an argument that
> > just because someone has running code, means it's a good indication of
> > adequacy of the protocol.
> 
> Specific examples aside, I agree.  Running code should be a necessary 
> condition for something to progress, but not a sufficient one.

I think we would do well to require a reference implementation as a condition for Proposed Standards from new working groups or individual submitters...but there are other conditions that we should impose that are far more important.  Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite before producing a reference implementation.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf