> we have just published a new revision of this draft, defining a new,
> optional Implementation Status section to be included in Internet Drafts:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-03
It does look mostly ready, though I think the primary addition in -03,
the recommended boilerplate, needs something.
As I said many times in response to Stephen's proposal, I vehemently
object to the idea that any "reward" is being given. The point here
is that specs with implementations have some greater level of evidence
of solidity than those without, and we're considering that evidence in
our evaluations -- we not rewarding them for having it, but giving
them the consideration they deserve.
When the word "reward" was only in the abstract, it was less
bothersome; now you're proposing that it be echoed in the boilerplate
of the Implementation Status section of every document that does this.
Please, no.
I suggest this change to the Abstract, Introduction, and Section 2.1:
OLD
This will allow
reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
that have the benefit of running code and potentially reward the
documented protocols by treating the documents with implementations
preferentially.
NEW
This will allow
reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code as
evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has made the
implemented protocols more mature.
END
And then a small point in 2.1:
Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of
this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before
publication, as well as the reference to [RFC Editor: replace by a
reference to this document].
Why not include that directly in the recommended boilerplate?:
OLD
The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation
Status section:
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC
Editor: replace by a reference to this document]. According to
[RFC Editor: replace by a reference to this document], "this will
allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to
documents that have the benefit of running code and potentially
reward the documented protocols by treating the documents with
implementations preferentially". Furthermore, "It is up to the
individual working groups to use this information as they see
fit".
NEW
The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation
Status section:
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in
[RFCXXXX]. According to [RFCXXXX], "This will allow reviewers
and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that
have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code
as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has
made the implemented protocols more mature." Furthermore, "It is
up to the individual working groups to use this information as they
see fit".
[RFC Editor: Please remove this entire section and the reference
to RFCXXXX.]
[RFC Editor: The "RFC Editor" note above is there as example text.
Please do not take action on it, and leave it in the document. Instead,
replace "RFCXXXX" by a reference to this document, and remove this
note.]
END
Barry
