> IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is
> certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability,
> mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the
> design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so
> forth. "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.
tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"?
itojun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
