I don't see the value of running code quite as others do. For me the value of running code is that the requirement to actually implement stuff does tend to reduce the scope for complexity, you have someone in the room pushing against something that will make work for them. And the other advantage is that there tends to be a closer relationship to actual real world needs.
But you do not have to do A to get B and doing A does not guarantee that you get B. Another alternative is to require people to produce a proof of correctness for their protocol. That provides even greater encouragement to be concise and to get it right the first time. The running code strategy can also backfire. I have seen groups where one party has a large development team on call that allows them to drive the specification. And I have also seen groups where no progress can be made because the programmer who wrote the dufus code won't allow the dufus to be deleted from the spec. Coding too early can also be a problem. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] on behalf of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 4:54 PM To: Marc Petit-Huguenin Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Running Code Marc, and Henry, I think adding any new mandatory section to all I-Ds is a bad idea. It will quickly become bureaucratic. We've had proposals for mandatory Management Considerations, IPv6 Considerations, and no doubt others that I've forgotten, and they all have the same problem. However, I think it's a very good idea to offer *guidelines* for what should be in technical specifications in this area. In fact, my old commentary on RFC2026 talked about related issues concerning interoperability criteria for promotion to Draft Standard. See the comments on "4.1.2 Draft Standard" in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-rfc2026-practice-00.txt Obviously, the first stage in interoperability is interoperability with yourself ;-). (As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to use any of that material under RFC5378 conditions.) I encourage your draft to become purely a set of guidelines. That would be useful and non-bureaucratic. Brian On 2009-03-04 10:17, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back > running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a > new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-petithuguenin-running-code-considerations-00.txt > > Thanks. > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
