Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Keith Moore wrote:

> > The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might
> > refuse to change protocols which are already deployed.
> >    
> This already happens to far too great a degree.  People keep arguing
> that because they have running/deployed code, IETF has to standardize
> exactly what they have already produced.  In many cases things that are
> deployed before they get widespread design review are very poorly designed.
>  
Indeed. And I have to admit that I have been in situations like this 
myself. There were several cases when I was reluctant to upgrade my code 
to the latest draft when I've implemented a previous version.

> > > I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent
> > > significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to
> > > specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly.  It would be
> > > useful if that energy waste could be reduced.  Having 'running code' as
> > > a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach.
> > >      
> > I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not
> > sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is
> > not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind).
> >    
> IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted.  While it is
> certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability,
>  
Yes. I found that implementing a spec before WG/IETF LC pretty much 
always improves the spec.

So although I see many benefits in running code, I don't think it should 
be given more weight that it deserves.

> mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the
> design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so
> forth.
Agree.

> "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there
> were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. 
> It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure.
>  


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