Perhaps my final comment on this. Also cutting the thread down to something readable. Inline. S.
On 1.14.2013 10:46 , "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: [...] > > >Yes, that's clearer. We're talking about two different continuums >(or continua:-), so either would work, and neither is important to >this draft. I'll make the change if there's enough support for it, >but as I guess you can see, this is an area where we won't get folks >to entirely agree. In this case, we don't need to, since the text >in question is just explanatory and has no significant impact on >the experiment at all. Definitely my final comment on this topic: I agree that the change has no impact on the operation of the iETF under the draft. IMO it simply fixes a flaw of logic. [...] >>>[Š] >>> I'd have no problem adding text that encouraged some form of >>> independence though, if you'd like to provide some. >> >> How about: >> >> "If the source code has been developed independently of the authoring of >> the draft (and ideally by non WG participants), it is likely that the >> implementation and the draft match, and that pitfalls unaware developers >> may find have been found and dealt with. If, on the other hand, draft >> author(s) and implementation developer(s) overlap, then it is sensible >>to >> scrutinize the draft more closely, both with respect to its match with >>the >> implementation and for assumptions that author/developer may have taken >> for granted which warrant documentation in the draft." > >That'd be no harm to add. I don't know that it improves the document >enough to bother though. I'll think about it, but let's see if anyone >else cares. Thanks. [...] > >>> >>> I'll see if I can come up with something better than "match" but >>> if you have text to suggest, that might help. >> >> Trying: >> >> "Match means that all, or substantially all, protocol mechanisms of the >> draft are implemented, that no other code points are implemented that >> would reasonably fall into the scope of the draft in question, that all >> documented state machines are implemented and no other state machines, >>and >> so forth. The over-the-wire behavior of the implementation and of the >> draft should substantially match, including more subtle points such as >> timing relationship of messages, . Minor divergences in details >>stemming >> from unaligned development cycles of draft and implementation are >> acceptable." > >I like most of that, thanks. For now, I've added this to 2.1, let me >know if it works: > > We do not give a precise definition for "match" here but the intent > is that all, or substantially all, protocol mechanisms of the draft > are implemented, that the over-the-wire behavior of the > implementation and of the draft should substantially match, including > more subtle points such as timing relationship of messages, etc. > Minor divergences in details stemming from unaligned development > cycles of draft and implementation are acceptable. Works for me. > >Cheers, >S. > >PS: There's a working draft at [1] in case that helps. > >[1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/draft-farrell-ft-04.txt > > >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> S. >>> >>>> >>>> Please consider this. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Stephan >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1.11.2013 08:21 , "Adrian Farrel" <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Alexa, >>>>> >>>>> Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week >>>>>IETF >>>>> last >>>>> call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under >>>>> the >>>>> rules >>>>> of RFC 3933. >>>>> >>>>> The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take >>>>>specific >>>>> actions >>>>> under certain circumstances in corner cases of the experiment. Could >>>>> you >>>>> please >>>>> have someone in the Secretariat look at the draft and comment on the >>>>> practicalities of the actions. Note that, at this stage, no changes >>>>>to >>>>> the tools >>>>> are proposed so any actions would require manual intervention (if the >>>>> experiment >>>>> were successful and resulted in permanent changes to IETF process we >>>>> might make >>>>> changes to the tools at some future time). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Adrian >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- >>>>>> boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG >>>>>> Sent: 11 January 2013 15:15 >>>>>> To: IETF-Announce >>>>>> Subject: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to >>>>>>RFC >>>>>> with >>>>> Running >>>>>> Code) to Experimental RFC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to >>>>>> consider >>>>>> the following document: >>>>>> - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code' >>>>>> <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> as Experimental RFC >>>>>> >>>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >>>>>>solicits >>>>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to >>>>>>the >>>>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally, comments >>>>>>may >>>>>> be >>>>>> sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >>>>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Abstract >>>>>> >>>>>> This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a >>>>>> working >>>>>> group document to IESG review. It is provided as a process >>>>>> experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group >>>>>>chairs >>>>>> believe that there is running code that implements a working >>>>>>group >>>>>> Internet-Draft. The motivation is to have the IETF process >>>>>> explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's >>>>>> overall >>>>>> philosophy of running code and rough consensus. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call, >>>>>>and >>>>>> Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period. >>>>>> Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be >>>>>>addressed >>>>>> during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes >>>>>> within two weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> This experiment will run for one year. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The file can be obtained via >>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ >>>>>> >>>>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/ >>>>>> >>>>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
