Kireeti, Martin,
Any data related to a serious implementation (even a beta without a
shipping date), would I think be convincing enough.
"release x.y @shipping date d" was simply provided as a possible answer,
not of the minimum requirement to be convincing.
As Martin said we need more than "I am aware of an implementation".
I would say we also need more than "we plan to implement".
There are cases where we may need more detailed data.
Take for instance the case of a draft that needs specific dataplane
support: would we accept as convincing enough an implementation on a
software-only platform, in the absence of any vendor planning to
implement on hardware ?
-Thomas
Martin Vigoureux :
Hello Kireeti,
thanks for your inputs.
I understand the challenge that "release x.y @shipping date d" might
pose. What we want, is to go beyond the "I am aware of an
implementation" type of response. It might currently be sufficient
with regards to the shepherd write-up question, but won't be any more
if we introduce the requirement. We'd like to have tangible
information. Giving "details on how much of the spec was implemented"
is clearly going in that direction.
-m
Le 26/11/2015 02:26, Kireeti Kompella a écrit :
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
