Sounds like a good idea to me. One tweak: having an official "release x.y @shipping date d" is unlikely for a draft. The value of one implementation (vs more) is that it shows that a spec is implementable and reasonably complete. So, this should be the focus, with details on how much of the spec was implemented. Shipping plans should be totally optional.
Note that even an experimental implementation takes effort, is likely to become official, and shows a degree of seriousness of the part of the implementor. Asking for greater commitment at WGLC is (imho) asking too much. Kireeti > On Nov 24, 2015, at 01:03, Thomas Morin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in Yokohama > about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, we propose to do > the following for future WG last calls: > > As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a document, the > chairs will ask the working group for known implementations of the > specifications; a relatively detailed level of information will be required > (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping date d", "all features > implemented", "partial implementation only", etc.) and everyone will be > invited to reply (not only co-authors of the specifications); the chairs will > then do the working group last call if satisfying information was provided on > at least one implementation. > > We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th. > > Martin & Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
