Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?

[Michael Thomas <mat at cisco.com>]

Keith Moore wrote:

> > > 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.
>  

How utterly sclerotic. And what is the IETF, the code police? If ever
there were a need to make the IETF utterly and completely beside the
point, this suggestion would be the perfect way.

      Mike

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