From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sun Dec 16 14:25:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B37921F8681 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:25:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gL+h3l2fa4rx for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:25:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D5221F8678 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:25:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBGMPtDw029311; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:25:55 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBGMPsul029305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:25:55 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:25:54 -0000 Message-ID: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3b3CL2Hyy2J0k9TpW2Aso6WkXN6A== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:25:58 -0000 What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the Routing Area? Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code > Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer > Adrian Farrel > Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2012-12-16 > > Abstract: > This document describes a simple process that allows authors of > Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. 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. > > The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of > Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for > their documents, and working groups are invited to think about > applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. > > The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this > experiment and to report them to the community. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sheffer-running-code-01 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sun Dec 16 15:25:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F87B21F8425 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:25:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uvr1mjGV9ybv for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D96621F8414 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C88A3C81 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2911C0781; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:25:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-70-106-135-81.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C06D1C0769; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:25:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50CE5871.1020203@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:25:37 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:25:42 -0000 this seems simple and useful. I would not want to require it. But it seems people do not even realize this would be useful information. So telling them we would like it seems sensible. Yours, Joel On 12/16/2012 5:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the > Routing Area? > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. >> >> >> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >> Adrian Farrel >> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2012-12-16 >> >> Abstract: >> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of >> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. 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. >> >> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of >> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for >> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about >> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. >> >> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this >> experiment and to report them to the community. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > From tony.li@tony.li Sun Dec 16 16:57:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C0D21F87D8 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:57:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zv9A-NbaUK2Y for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5086F21F87B4 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:57:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.27]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id cNpa1k00K0b6N64A1QxSmF; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:57:26 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn7-675.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id cQvB1k00952qHCY8PQvDqu; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:55:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <50CE5871.1020203@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:55:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <50CE5871.1020203@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1355705846; bh=kLefl1yP45mbq7yOxZ5h9m3VeSNFEK/0rn8fdruFMLk=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=ScAlhmodHQ193Qz9T904XqxwVQUwlfkcoMSiSSy7AJUzb1So7dkZrqNuROXiw2e+e F0dXhPl5kCI1rpSnwkQC7pY5cR982g2oXTGX/JQ5lPrGf5l67J6MsL4uk7gwTiABSn qlVZbJ52yB8vXpwWUMN3jdQRehtrkY6h9wmeltKSk56TNSr0Kpa4IiBu+qP8jyRODZ PkbH4MSp92NhHJP7oFyk3+aYw46gt653tbNoaypU7r/czmh3AiXFqNj14x+X+yIuVZ 7VsQZDbc0vhSudrOzeCd4T5ZndOnOadxmZhj0pfF55G0uJ/TIBhLbiTb84d4OMeD4u u1F1iH+zH0oGg== Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, routing-discussion@ietf.org, 'Yaron Sheffer' X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:57:27 -0000 +1=20 Tony On Dec 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" = wrote: > this seems simple and useful. I would not want to require it. But it = seems people do not even realize this would be useful information. So = telling them we would like it seems sensible. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 12/16/2012 5:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in = the >> Routing Area? >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Adrian >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >>> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >>> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >>> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >>> Adrian Farrel >>> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >>> Pages : 8 >>> Date : 2012-12-16 >>>=20 >>> Abstract: >>> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of >>> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. = 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. >>>=20 >>> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. = Authors of >>> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for >>> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about >>> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. >>>=20 >>> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with = this >>> experiment and to report them to the community. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code >>>=20 >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>>=20 >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> routing-discussion mailing list >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From bruno.decraene@orange.com Mon Dec 17 00:20:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5697421F8A0B for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:20:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJedGlKj3dvr for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC9921F89C8 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 34FAD22C400; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:20:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0F7BA35C0B5; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:20:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:20:32 +0100 From: To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Subject: RE: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Thread-Topic: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Thread-Index: Ac3b3CL2Hyy2J0k9TpW2Aso6WkXN6AAURH9g Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:20:32 +0000 Message-ID: <11027_1355732433_50CED5D1_11027_353_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11925D@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.24.110314 Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:20:35 -0000 Looks lightweight and useful. > o Coverage: which parts of the protocol specification are implemented= and which versions of the Internet-Draft were implemented. +1 > Later, the IETF Tools may support this functionality, e.g. by including s= uch a link from the HTMLized draft version, similarly to the IPR link. +1 IMO, such info would also be useful after RFC publication, e.g. during the = deployment phase. Thanks. Bruno >-----Original Message----- >From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- >bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel >Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:26 PM >To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' >Subject: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > >What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the >Routing Area? > >Thanks, >Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.or= g] >> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >> >> >> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >> Adrian Farrel >> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2012-12-16 >> >> Abstract: >> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of >> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. 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. >> >> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of >> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for >> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about >> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. >> >> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this >> experiment and to report them to the community. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-sheffer-running-code-01 >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >_______________________________________________ >routing-discussion mailing list >routing-discussion@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for message= s that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From bruno.decraene@orange.com Mon Dec 17 01:05:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B001921F867B for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:05:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FpXJbKxwkA-k for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B2A21F8A64 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8FFF62642FC; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:05:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5D0974C121; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:05:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:05:35 +0100 From: To: Yaron Sheffer Subject: RE: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Thread-Topic: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHN3DPvHyy2J0k9TpW2Aso6WkXN6JgcsBOA Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:05:34 +0000 Message-ID: <16116_1355735135_50CEE05F_16116_90_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11929A@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <11027_1355732433_50CED5D1_11027_353_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11925D@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <50CEDD74.9010208@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50CEDD74.9010208@gmail.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.24.110314 Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:05:37 -0000 SGkgWWFyb24sDQoNCj5Gcm9tOiBZYXJvbiBTaGVmZmVyIFttYWlsdG86eWFyb25mLmlldGZAZ21h aWwuY29tXSA+U2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAxNywgMjAxMiA5OjUzIEFNDQo+DQo+SGkg QnJ1bm8sDQo+DQo+dGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGlzIGNlcnRhaW5seSB1c2VmdWwgYWZ0ZXIgdGhl IFJGQyBoYWQgYmVlbiBwdWJsaXNoZWQuDQo+QnV0IHdpa2lzIGhhdmUgYSB0ZW5kZW5jeSB0byBi ZWNvbWUgb3V0ZGF0ZWQuIFVudGlsIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uLCBhdA0KPmxlYXN0IHRoZSBhdXRob3Jz IGFyZSBtb3RpdmF0ZWQgdG8ga2VlcCB0aGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gY3VycmVudDsNCj5hZnRlcndh cmRzLCBJIGRvbid0IGtub3cgYSB3YXkgdG8gZG8gaXQuDQoNCklmIHdlIGZpbmQgdGhpcyBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiB1c2VmdWwgYW5kIHRoZSBJRVRGIHByb3ZpZGVzIGEgd2F5IHRvIHJlY29yZCBpdDoN Ci0gaW1wbGVtZW50ZXJzL3ZlbmRvcnMgY291bGQgaW5jbHVkZSB0aGlzIGluIHRoZWlyIHByb2Nl c3MuIEl0J3MgYSBzbWFsbCBjb3N0IG9ubHkgb25lIHBlciBSRkMgKHdoZW4gaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQp DQotIFNQIGNvdWxkIGFzayB0aGlzIHRvIHRoZWlyIHZlbmRvciAoZS5nLiBkdXJpbmcgYSBSRlAs IHdlIGFzc3VtZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIFJGQyBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUg b24gdGhlIElFVEYgc2l0ZSkuIEF0IGxlYXN0IGZvciBSUEYgcHJvY2VzcywgbG9va3MgdG8gbWUg dGhpcyBjb3VsZCBzYXZlIHRpbWUgdG8gYm90aCB2ZW5kb3JzIGFuZCBTUC4NCg0KQnV0IEkgYWdy ZWUgdGhhdCdzIGEgc2Vjb25kIHN0ZXAsIGFmdGVyIHRoaXMgZXhwZXJpbWVudC4NCg0KVGhhbmtz IGFnYWluIGZvciB0aGlzIGluaXRpYXRpdmUsDQpCcnVubw0KDQo+VGhhbmtzLA0KPglZYXJvbg0K Pg0KPk9uIDEyLzE3LzIwMTIgMTA6MjAgQU0sIGJydW5vLmRlY3JhZW5lQG9yYW5nZS5jb20gd3Jv dGU6DQo+PiBMb29rcyBsaWdodHdlaWdodCBhbmQgdXNlZnVsLg0KPj4NCj4+PiAgICAgbyAgQ292 ZXJhZ2U6IHdoaWNoIHBhcnRzIG9mIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIGFyZSBpbXBs ZW1lbnRlZA0KPmFuZCB3aGljaCB2ZXJzaW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgd2VyZSBp bXBsZW1lbnRlZC4NCj4+DQo+PiArMQ0KPj4NCj4+PiBMYXRlciwgdGhlIElFVEYgVG9vbHMgbWF5 IHN1cHBvcnQgdGhpcyBmdW5jdGlvbmFsaXR5LCBlLmcuIGJ5IGluY2x1ZGluZyBzdWNoDQo+YSBs aW5rIGZyb20gdGhlIEhUTUxpemVkIGRyYWZ0IHZlcnNpb24sIHNpbWlsYXJseSB0byB0aGUgSVBS IGxpbmsuDQo+Pg0KPj4gKzENCj4+DQo+Pg0KPj4gSU1PLCBzdWNoIGluZm8gd291bGQgYWxzbyBi ZSB1c2VmdWwgYWZ0ZXIgUkZDIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uLCBlLmcuIGR1cmluZyB0aGUNCj5kZXBsb3lt ZW50IHBoYXNlLg0KPj4NCj4+DQo+PiBUaGFua3MuDQo+PiBCcnVubw0KPj4NCj4+PiAtLS0tLU9y aWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPj4+IEZyb206IHJvdXRpbmctZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi1ib3VuY2Vz QGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86cm91dGluZy1kaXNjdXNzaW9uLQ0KPj4+IGJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5v cmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBBZHJpYW4gRmFycmVsDQo+Pj4gU2VudDogU3VuZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJl ciAxNiwgMjAxMiAxMToyNiBQTQ0KPj4+IFRvOiByb3V0aW5nLWRpc2N1c3Npb25AaWV0Zi5vcmcN Cj4+PiBDYzogJ1lhcm9uIFNoZWZmZXInDQo+Pj4gU3ViamVjdDogT3BpbmlvbnMgcGxlYXNlOiBk cmFmdC1zaGVmZmVyLXJ1bm5pbmctY29kZS0wMS50eHQNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IFdoYXQgZG8geW91IHRo aW5rPyBJcyB0aGlzIHRoZSBzb3J0IG9mIHRoaW5nIHlvdSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gbG9vayBhdCBpbiB0 aGUNCj4+PiBSb3V0aW5nIEFyZWE/DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGFua3MsDQo+Pj4gQWRyaWFuDQo+Pj4N Cj4+Pj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4+Pj4gRnJvbTogaS1kLWFubm91bmNl LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppLWQtYW5ub3VuY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10N Cj4+Pj4gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4+PiBTZW50OiAx NiBEZWNlbWJlciAyMDEyIDIyOjIwDQo+Pj4+IFRvOiBpLWQtYW5ub3VuY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4+ Pj4gU3ViamVjdDogSS1EIEFjdGlvbjogZHJhZnQtc2hlZmZlci1ydW5uaW5nLWNvZGUtMDEudHh0 DQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+IEEgTmV3IEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0IGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmcm9t IHRoZSBvbi1saW5lIEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cw0KPj4+IGRpcmVjdG9yaWVzLg0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+ Pg0KPj4+PiAJVGl0bGUgICAgICAgICAgIDogSW1wcm92aW5nICJSb3VnaCBDb25zZW5zdXMiIHdp dGggUnVubmluZyBDb2RlDQo+Pj4+IAlBdXRob3IocykgICAgICAgOiBZYXJvbiBTaGVmZmVyDQo+ Pj4+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWwNCj4+Pj4gCUZpbGVu YW1lICAgICAgICA6IGRyYWZ0LXNoZWZmZXItcnVubmluZy1jb2RlLTAxLnR4dA0KPj4+PiAJUGFn ZXMgICAgICAgICAgIDogOA0KPj4+PiAJRGF0ZSAgICAgICAgICAgIDogMjAxMi0xMi0xNg0KPj4+ Pg0KPj4+PiBBYnN0cmFjdDoNCj4+Pj4gICAgIFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmVzIGEgc2lt cGxlIHByb2Nlc3MgdGhhdCBhbGxvd3MgYXV0aG9ycyBvZg0KPj4+PiAgICAgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJh ZnRzIHRvIHJlY29yZCB0aGUgc3RhdHVzIG9mIGtub3duIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucy4gIFRoaXMN Cj4+Pj4gICAgIHdpbGwgYWxsb3cgcmV2aWV3ZXJzIGFuZCB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwcyB0byBhc3Np Z24gZHVlIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24NCj4+Pj4gICAgIHRvIGRvY3VtZW50cyB0aGF0IGhhdmUgdGhl IGJlbmVmaXQgb2YgcnVubmluZyBjb2RlIGFuZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseQ0KPj4+PiAgICAgcmV3YXJk IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudGVkIHByb3RvY29scyBieSB0cmVhdGluZyB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnRzIHdpdGgN Cj4+Pj4gICAgIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBwcmVmZXJlbnRpYWxseS4NCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4gICAg IFRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgb2ZmZXJlZCBhcyBhbiBleHBlcmltZW50 LiAgQXV0aG9ycyBvZg0KPj4+PiAgICAgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGFyZSBlbmNvdXJhZ2VkIHRv IGNvbnNpZGVyIHVzaW5nIHRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIGZvcg0KPj4+PiAgICAgdGhlaXIgZG9jdW1lbnRz LCBhbmQgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgYXJlIGludml0ZWQgdG8gdGhpbmsgYWJvdXQNCj4+Pj4gICAg IGFwcGx5aW5nIHRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIHRvIGFsbCBvZiB0aGVpciBwcm90b2NvbCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0 aW9ucy4NCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4gICAgIFRoZSBhdXRob3JzIG9mIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgaW50ZW5k IHRvIGNvbGxhdGUgZXhwZXJpZW5jZXMgd2l0aCB0aGlzDQo+Pj4+ICAgICBleHBlcmltZW50IGFu ZCB0byByZXBvcnQgdGhlbSB0byB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5Lg0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+PiBUaGUg SUVURiBkYXRhdHJhY2tlciBzdGF0dXMgcGFnZSBmb3IgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBpczoNCj4+Pj4gaHR0 cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtc2hlZmZlci1ydW5uaW5nLWNvZGUN Cj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4gVGhlcmUncyBhbHNvIGEgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQ6 DQo+Pj4+IGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXNoZWZmZXItcnVubmluZy1j b2RlLTAxDQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+IEEgZGlmZiBmcm9tIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyB2ZXJzaW9uIGlzIGF2 YWlsYWJsZSBhdDoNCj4+Pj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3VybDI9ZHJhZnQt c2hlZmZlci1ydW5uaW5nLWNvZGUtMDENCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4gSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRz IGFyZSBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBieSBhbm9ueW1vdXMgRlRQIGF0Og0KPj4+PiBmdHA6Ly9mdHAu aWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzLw0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPj4+PiBJLUQtQW5ub3VuY2UgbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0DQo+Pj4+IEktRC1Bbm5vdW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4+PiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2ktZC1hbm5vdW5jZQ0KPj4+PiBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCBkaXJl Y3RvcmllczogaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9zaGFkb3cuaHRtbA0KPj4+PiBvciBmdHA6Ly9m dHAuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaWV0Zi8xc2hhZG93LXNpdGVzLnR4dA0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+PiByb3V0aW5nLWRpc2N1c3Np b24gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+Pj4gcm91dGluZy1kaXNjdXNzaW9uQGlldGYub3JnDQo+Pj4gaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9yb3V0aW5nLWRpc2N1c3Npb24NCj4+ DQo+Pg0KPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+DQo+PiBDZSBtZXNzYWdlIGV0IHNlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRl cyBwZXV2ZW50IGNvbnRlbmlyIGRlcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbnMNCj5jb25maWRlbnRpZWxsZXMgb3Ug cHJpdmlsZWdpZWVzIGV0IG5lIGRvaXZlbnQgZG9uYw0KPj4gcGFzIGV0cmUgZGlmZnVzZXMsIGV4 cGxvaXRlcyBvdSBjb3BpZXMgc2FucyBhdXRvcmlzYXRpb24uIFNpIHZvdXMgYXZleiByZWN1DQo+ Y2UgbWVzc2FnZSBwYXIgZXJyZXVyLCB2ZXVpbGxleiBsZSBzaWduYWxlcg0KPj4gYSBsJ2V4cGVk aXRldXIgZXQgbGUgZGV0cnVpcmUgYWluc2kgcXVlIGxlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRlcy4gTGVzIG1l c3NhZ2VzDQo+ZWxlY3Ryb25pcXVlcyBldGFudCBzdXNjZXB0aWJsZXMgZCdhbHRlcmF0aW9uLA0K Pj4gRnJhbmNlIFRlbGVjb20gLSBPcmFuZ2UgZGVjbGluZSB0b3V0ZSByZXNwb25zYWJpbGl0ZSBz aSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIGEgZXRlDQo+YWx0ZXJlLCBkZWZvcm1lIG91IGZhbHNpZmllLiBNZXJjaS4N Cj4+DQo+PiBUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBjb25m aWRlbnRpYWwgb3IgcHJpdmlsZWdlZA0KPmluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRoYXQgbWF5IGJlIHByb3RlY3Rl ZCBieSBsYXc7DQo+PiB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQsIHVzZWQgb3IgY29w aWVkIHdpdGhvdXQgYXV0aG9yaXNhdGlvbi4NCj4+IElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMg ZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBhbmQgZGVsZXRlDQo+dGhp cyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMuDQo+PiBBcyBlbWFpbHMgbWF5IGJlIGFsdGVy ZWQsIEZyYW5jZSBUZWxlY29tIC0gT3JhbmdlIGlzIG5vdCBsaWFibGUgZm9yIG1lc3NhZ2VzDQo+ dGhhdCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbW9kaWZpZWQsIGNoYW5nZWQgb3IgZmFsc2lmaWVkLg0KPj4gVGhhbmsg eW91Lg0KPj4NCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCgpDZSBtZXNzYWdlIGV0IHNlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRlcyBwZXV2 ZW50IGNvbnRlbmlyIGRlcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWVsbGVzIG91IHByaXZpbGVn aWVlcyBldCBuZSBkb2l2ZW50IGRvbmMKcGFzIGV0cmUgZGlmZnVzZXMsIGV4cGxvaXRlcyBvdSBj b3BpZXMgc2FucyBhdXRvcmlzYXRpb24uIFNpIHZvdXMgYXZleiByZWN1IGNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgcGFy IGVycmV1ciwgdmV1aWxsZXogbGUgc2lnbmFsZXIKYSBsJ2V4cGVkaXRldXIgZXQgbGUgZGV0cnVp cmUgYWluc2kgcXVlIGxlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRlcy4gTGVzIG1lc3NhZ2VzIGVsZWN0cm9uaXF1 ZXMgZXRhbnQgc3VzY2VwdGlibGVzIGQnYWx0ZXJhdGlvbiwKRnJhbmNlIFRlbGVjb20gLSBPcmFu Z2UgZGVjbGluZSB0b3V0ZSByZXNwb25zYWJpbGl0ZSBzaSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIGEgZXRlIGFsdGVy ZSwgZGVmb3JtZSBvdSBmYWxzaWZpZS4gTWVyY2kuCgpUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGl0cyBhdHRh Y2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgb3IgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlv biB0aGF0IG1heSBiZSBwcm90ZWN0ZWQgYnkgbGF3Owp0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgZGlzdHJp YnV0ZWQsIHVzZWQgb3IgY29waWVkIHdpdGhvdXQgYXV0aG9yaXNhdGlvbi4KSWYgeW91IGhhdmUg cmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFu ZCBkZWxldGUgdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMuCkFzIGVtYWlscyBtYXkg YmUgYWx0ZXJlZCwgRnJhbmNlIFRlbGVjb20gLSBPcmFuZ2UgaXMgbm90IGxpYWJsZSBmb3IgbWVz c2FnZXMgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbW9kaWZpZWQsIGNoYW5nZWQgb3IgZmFsc2lmaWVkLgpUaGFu ayB5b3UuCgo= From yaronf.ietf@gmail.com Mon Dec 17 00:53:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F32321F8534 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:53:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnCRzld7+O5C for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E86B21F852E for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so4406981lbk.31 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:53:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ygxOPxNqJk/7Kn1Vezy7R6uk8t0RfGzFDGYJ0COAWFQ=; b=I/uD62aONzav+OC+vW0K6E1gjwOy/IXiav7bU+P1wd2wbbR3z2u8FwzexPsqZcroVK IPvjss0RSIEHt0rhNzF3WD4KbZYiGzPRC2bInxO9pRB0WARydYrR9YqRl2/CcnhT/9TF GCVV7nDVPl9LrzF5vzn8UV2tcKt/+evnJElMLuy6JnLqPuBr59Qs/n0xYzruQNUK/mZf CpylvWFWy3jc24f8xNK/py2/Ld9uYjI0GCbe2lJACt1nuU54d1qO9YsdS8vo8TbQoTYM nC4iSScjidxAVSrujuzISncJhByK1jV4rqm2GVVUCKWmm2o86/sVqvE28ozohup9JFKc 8LRg== Received: by 10.112.11.34 with SMTP id n2mr5529708lbb.100.1355734393062; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.5] (bzq-79-182-171-89.red.bezeqint.net. [79.182.171.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fe4sm4590280lbb.1.2012.12.17.00.53.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:53:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50CEDD74.9010208@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:53:08 +0200 From: Yaron Sheffer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bruno.decraene@orange.com Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <11027_1355732433_50CED5D1_11027_353_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11925D@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> In-Reply-To: <11027_1355732433_50CED5D1_11027_353_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11925D@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:50:41 -0800 Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:53:15 -0000 Hi Bruno, the information is certainly useful after the RFC had been published. But wikis have a tendency to become outdated. Until publication, at least the authors are motivated to keep the information current; afterwards, I don't know a way to do it. Thanks, Yaron On 12/17/2012 10:20 AM, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: > Looks lightweight and useful. > >> o Coverage: which parts of the protocol specification are implemented and which versions of the Internet-Draft were implemented. > > +1 > >> Later, the IETF Tools may support this functionality, e.g. by including such a link from the HTMLized draft version, similarly to the IPR link. > > +1 > > > IMO, such info would also be useful after RFC publication, e.g. during the deployment phase. > > > Thanks. > Bruno > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- >> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel >> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:26 PM >> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >> Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' >> Subject: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> >> What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the >> Routing Area? >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >>> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >>> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >>> >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >>> >>> >>> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >>> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >>> Adrian Farrel >>> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >>> Pages : 8 >>> Date : 2012-12-16 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of >>> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. 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. >>> >>> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of >>> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for >>> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about >>> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. >>> >>> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this >>> experiment and to report them to the community. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code >>> >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>> >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> routing-discussion mailing list >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Mon Dec 17 07:21:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D4821F888C for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:21:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HvOu889TLabE for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA0621F87C7 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so7201549vbb.31 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:21:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XLrfoHv+kQOpSoNBeLTtazBORpjf4NtpU0XKQci0qUE=; b=uZdH45OY7wAvwwWWXjeNWxikhrxtq5FP659PfUa4gZJkljrCBBq+rJRmpqbCiaWbaM 98qSZuqcY3dKrArbUTylXsWrEEXhPNm/gjQuyiTixGFPL8LnvJKswfeNiwzo+Lk7LbZe bECUlW+HICLMN1vhUo82p/CsGeUbVjVYrI+08T02CPlqrAZbtGsxA0HRMOxpc+7gQBKQ TCglrBhLAc3Qe8XsLG/BJihLrj8v1aCQlBh4HbdEpNbIhxmChScNfYfBtglOZnQLNJMw NbE+T20BOtqoDqhhDQTgnEr8zFYXD0AEq5qBrkB867V4Hm8zg/JsEIhvGhaA6BxJp3Zj EsBw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.21.179 with SMTP id w19mr20817516vde.55.1355757671800; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:21:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.145.5 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:21:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:21:11 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt From: Abdussalam Baryun To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Yaron Sheffer , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:21:13 -0000 +1 AB On 12/16/12, Adrian Farrel wrote: > What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the > Routing Area? > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. >> >> >> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >> Adrian Farrel >> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2012-12-16 >> >> Abstract: >> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of >> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. 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. >> >> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of >> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for >> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about >> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. >> >> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this >> experiment and to report them to the community. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > From joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil Mon Dec 17 09:25:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A2721F887B for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:25:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hMPZeKBFKFQ1 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:25:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ccs.nrl.navy.mil (mx0.ccs.nrl.navy.mil [IPv6:2001:480:20:118:118::211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9B921F884E for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:25:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from m22jm.itd.nrl.navy.mil (m22jm.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.92.50]) by ccs.nrl.navy.mil (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBHHOxur006110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:24:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joe Macker In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:27:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-CCS-MailScanner: No viruses found. X-CCS-MailScanner-Info: See: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/ccs/support/email Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:25:16 -0000 +1 Seems simple and good to encourage people to discuss/include this = information somewhere. -joe On Dec 16, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in = the > Routing Area? >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >>=20 >>=20 >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. >>=20 >>=20 >> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >> Adrian Farrel >> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2012-12-16 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of >> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. = 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. >>=20 >> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors = of >> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for >> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about >> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. >>=20 >> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with = this >> experiment and to report them to the community. >>=20 >>=20 >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code >>=20 >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>=20 >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>=20 >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >=20 > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From bew@cisco.com Mon Dec 17 10:39:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA9621F8B0C for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:39:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sPoKU1D6UZeK for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:39:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE2B21F8AA6 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:39:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3190; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1355769573; x=1356979173; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=s9iU6utQxtW/+YksKkcPIU/ocECJoGNzZ/HWewHnjG8=; b=A+NsP6FhjCqQKm4I53o+Bkvax66ltQQhhXUPJu1aujm/JD5350LOf1ba RM23GAnLWSrlB9N48QGL8V2w5otpepsCzMoMrtW36+ArlN9QcagW2GSmA H4shZX8r/I0XKERwuFnzFRCLqnxnvMVdDfrEohH/XRk5V2L6DLHnto10W w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AswPAK1lz1CrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABFg0gli0CvBhZzgh4BAQEDAQEBATc0CwUHBAsRBAEBKAcnHwkIBhMJC4d5BQEHBbl1jF2BGoJIYQOIYY0pgRyKHoUOgxQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,304,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="63692747" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2012 18:39:30 +0000 Received: from dhcp-128-107-147-77.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-147-77.cisco.com [128.107.147.77]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBHIdUxc015607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:39:30 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt From: Brian Weis In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:39:34 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:39:34 -0000 An informal record of implementation claims during the development of = the standard could be valuable for a number of purposes, so I support = this. The information is less valuable after publication = (implementations change but claims in an RFC are static) so I agree with = the guidance to remove it before publishing.=20 In the context of the information being short-lived and volatile, I = don't see the value of discussing licensing in the Implementation Status = section. Thanks, Brian On Dec 16, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in = the > Routing Area? >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >>=20 >>=20 >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. >>=20 >>=20 >> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >> Adrian Farrel >> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2012-12-16 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of >> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. = 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. >>=20 >> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors = of >> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for >> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about >> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. >>=20 >> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with = this >> experiment and to report them to the community. >>=20 >>=20 >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code >>=20 >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>=20 >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-sheffer-running-code-01 >>=20 >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >=20 > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From chopps@rawdofmt.org Tue Dec 18 03:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9393A21F8819 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oV5GDJ-Zv5s for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f45.google.com (mail-vb0-f45.google.com [209.85.212.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F30521F87F7 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p1so683225vbi.32 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:47:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=QS9VNqmOvWWnt0+VFq2ek2EQNgyT8pz8lrJ+/xyVYsQ=; b=F+N7jtrNphRtow8VmaLAAhavD3DW6M2oLfCc2QOTZVqsCnAzFUpxgOy/h4P5TznneM +Q2JAvoQlVHZkojBbl1uO5UjoZOQYK21uxkyJjn2FSSG6jEp7dekBpTjkrTVzzoH+BkP dHO5i+GcGIEF7ADsjFlBFM3el4WsXOmjCXoRWQ3qtnM8CTqCd6KizBWX05DrTooRlGqm 7mBGtTxh0UMsznETYyguVID8Xl9CVmn1IyyVb9SBcFhOu+WuBjMZ7uk6Eo7S6axRr4S4 oHGpRhV0AYmlsT6KvXJLz2k7+QdxcB89pSn8v68TXCC41ilyOrTsSb404Z7tvrtskQzy jRKA== X-Received: by 10.52.93.41 with SMTP id cr9mr2090993vdb.118.1355831242754; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (c-69-137-219-105.hsd1.mi.comcast.net. [69.137.219.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t6sm1302316vdf.18.2012.12.18.03.47.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:47:21 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt From: Christian Hopps In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQla/8bzo6fUGCyRFmShdnFc48UqP0w5qBAcXvKR4/agYl7XZSi7/C/mqerQ1GV9EuEmqF6s Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' , Christian Hopps , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:47:24 -0000 This seems useful to me. Thanks, Chris. On Dec 16, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the > Routing Area? > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. >> >> >> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code >> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer >> Adrian Farrel >> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2012-12-16 From eckert@cisco.com Tue Dec 18 05:36:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB39C21F8A4B for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:36:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.832 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.767, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HP3uxTwpIipT for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:36:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AD221F8A43 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:36:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3008; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1355837800; x=1357047400; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Zo/bTIkaPLYtcC2jpczjx7Agxl7vtRbyhrtJlE+w7yc=; b=I+hx1r6sUVU38H1MQmDN3PHKIaO59rJp3nEGoPAf70klpJUZzvO380If dBofXDBn0EL3TdsRtaCu/iNOGYjjtdbqBbMrSJCl8IUNbSWlA6E3q5VH2 oKC1Mq+AgCG1bBu/nJYRJrH1JkbF7lqpejk6FKH+8YaGv1tzoS4Yalybc Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au0GAAdw0FCrRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABEg0glujkWc4IeAQEBBAEBATc0CwwECxEBAwEBAScHFBMfAwYOEwkLh34IBagQkE2MSYNiYQOIYY0oAYEcih6FDoMU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,309,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="66872091" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2012 13:36:39 +0000 Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBIDadYe020062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:36:39 GMT Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mdt-linux4 [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBIDadX2031565; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:36:39 -0800 Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id qBIDacKZ031564; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:36:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:36:38 -0800 From: Toerless Eckert To: Adrian Farrel Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Message-ID: <20121218133638.GE21725@cisco.com> References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:36:40 -0000 +1 I would definitely like to see focus on tooling the IETF wiki to track his information. Putting it in the drafts is IMHO just useful as long as there is no such web tooling. On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:25:54PM +0000, Adrian Farrel wrote: > What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the > Routing Area? > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] > > On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > > > > Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code > > Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer > > Adrian Farrel > > Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > > Pages : 8 > > Date : 2012-12-16 > > > > Abstract: > > This document describes a simple process that allows authors of > > Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. 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. > > > > The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of > > Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for > > their documents, and working groups are invited to think about > > applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. > > > > The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this > > experiment and to report them to the community. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sheffer-running-code-01 > > > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy! From ietfa@btconnect.com Mon Dec 24 04:31:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6C721F8834 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:31:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42tlAA3P1FwI for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:31:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972B521F8765 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail187-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.247) by TX2EHSOBE007.bigfish.com (10.9.40.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:31:43 +0000 Received: from mail187-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail187-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1740E32018D; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:31:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.253.85; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0710HT005.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -26 X-BigFish: PS-26(zzbb2dI98dI9371I936eI542I1dbaI1432I1418I4015I111aIzz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275dh1033IL17326ah8275bhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839h947hd24hf0ah1177h1179h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h304l1155h) Received: from mail187-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail187-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1356352300904309_6721; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.252]) by mail187-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA18D480054; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3PRD0710HT005.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.253.85) by TX2EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (10.9.99.126) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:31:40 +0000 Received: from DBXPRD0210HT005.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (157.56.253.181) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.255.75.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.245.2; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:31:35 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01cde1d2$58bbd920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Yaron Sheffer References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk><11027_1355732433_50CED5D1_11027_353_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11925D@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup><50CEDD74.9010208@gmail.com> <16116_1355735135_50CEE05F_16116_90_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11929A@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:28:11 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [157.56.253.181] X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com Cc: Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:31:46 -0000 I think that this I-D is a bad idea but find it hard to articulate why. The idea that running code matters to the IETF is well known, and you cannot participate for long in the IETF without becoming aware of it, so promoting it further seems unnecessary. I am often amazed by how much implementation there is early in the life of a draft when major changes can and do happen; which is a tribute to the power of the idea. Offering a bribe to encourage running code seems unnecesary. I often see WG Chairs solicit information about implementations at adoption, WG Last Call, advancement to the IESG and so on, mostly with the proviso that there is no need to make the information public on the list. I think this last significant. There are those who are only to glad to make their implementations known, to get the publicity thereof, and I suspect that this is the category that most open source implementations will come under. My own experience of code comes from large, commercial organisations, whose existence depends on getting a return on the investment they put into code development - and, critically, maintenance - which then places constraints on what can be announced and when. It seems unlikely that the erratic, but invariably late, progress of an IETF I-D can help with when to make that announcement. It seems then that any formalisation of this matter will promote open source and its afficionados - I am reminded on the 'DoS attack' on the IETF main list a while back - at the expense of the commercial developpers. Which is enough of a reason for me to think that this is a bad idea. But as I said, I am more convinced that this is a bad idea than I can yet articulate. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Yaron Sheffer" Cc: ; Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:05 AM > Hi Yaron, > > >From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:53 AM > > > >Hi Bruno, > > > >the information is certainly useful after the RFC had been published. > >But wikis have a tendency to become outdated. Until publication, at > >least the authors are motivated to keep the information current; > >afterwards, I don't know a way to do it. > > If we find this information useful and the IETF provides a way to record it: > - implementers/vendors could include this in their process. It's a small cost only one per RFC (when implemented) > - SP could ask this to their vendor (e.g. during a RFP, we assume that the list of RFC implemented is available on the IETF site). At least for RPF process, looks to me this could save time to both vendors and SP. > > But I agree that's a second step, after this experiment. > > Thanks again for this initiative, > Bruno > > >Thanks, > > Yaron > > > >On 12/17/2012 10:20 AM, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: > >> Looks lightweight and useful. > >> > >>> o Coverage: which parts of the protocol specification are implemented > >and which versions of the Internet-Draft were implemented. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >>> Later, the IETF Tools may support this functionality, e.g. by including such > >a link from the HTMLized draft version, similarly to the IPR link. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> IMO, such info would also be useful after RFC publication, e.g. during the > >deployment phase. > >> > >> > >> Thanks. > >> Bruno > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- > >>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > >>> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:26 PM > >>> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > >>> Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' > >>> Subject: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > >>> > >>> What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the > >>> Routing Area? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Adrian > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] > >>>> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > >>>> Sent: 16 December 2012 22:20 > >>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >>> directories. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Title : Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code > >>>> Author(s) : Yaron Sheffer > >>>> Adrian Farrel > >>>> Filename : draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt > >>>> Pages : 8 > >>>> Date : 2012-12-16 > >>>> > >>>> Abstract: > >>>> This document describes a simple process that allows authors of > >>>> Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations. 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. > >>>> > >>>> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of > >>>> Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for > >>>> their documents, and working groups are invited to think about > >>>> applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. > >>>> > >>>> The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this > >>>> experiment and to report them to the community. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code > >>>> > >>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: > >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-01 > >>>> > >>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sheffer-running-code-01 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> I-D-Announce mailing list > >>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > >>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> routing-discussion mailing list > >>> routing-discussion@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > >> > >> > >_______________________________________________________________________ ________ > >__________________________________________ > >> > >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > >ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > >electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > >> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete > >altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > >> > >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > >information that may be protected by law; > >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > >this message and its attachments. > >> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages > >that have been modified, changed or falsified. > >> Thank you. > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > From yaronf.ietf@gmail.com Mon Dec 24 04:53:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD0221F8849 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:53:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bzXEsztB9S-X for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com (mail-bk0-f47.google.com [209.85.214.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047A221F8846 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j4so3294035bkw.6 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:53:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BJ3PDDrfVZ9C37JcBUJRTcv0f/3xYgslceytE+gb4EE=; b=VENn9uIu4QkPAssKTvEBVP7OL3mx9oKA5P9E7rJ4DRFcSifEyLauzOSJxieyHh0WYY GNmQJkdYAL7aCLRgjRivxejlfFUq2DPX9nEGAmY2IgZRYl58KuuCvvKnFWDRTosnEhi5 CTLoRDJMoMs+vT/A5uhrNGp/4AsOKdNpvD1kpdi9yyMYF1quC2jo7MVns65YTy7LRVb4 8eQF6GDCOgYxObtsS/mx8en+WTw1DnLSIum96gNRsqfHeJdzmEKaMn9ie9lM8jU/2Ivo siLoi6sCQ4IOJIIYaEFzk9RJvRqZQR80hs4p8fDY9Q2PiT9C1/MASY656YjtUUvfVNnA ClJw== X-Received: by 10.204.148.130 with SMTP id p2mr10321472bkv.10.1356353580035; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.13] (85-250-110-45.bb.netvision.net.il. [85.250.110.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q22sm15140668bkv.16.2012.12.24.04.52.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:52:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50D8501F.2080704@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:52:47 +0200 From: Yaron Sheffer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "t.petch" Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk><11027_1355732433_50CED5D1_11027_353_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11925D@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup><50CEDD74.9010208@gmail.com> <16116_1355735135_50CEE05F_16116_90_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11929A@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <000b01cde1d2$58bbd920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> In-Reply-To: <000b01cde1d2$58bbd920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:53:02 -0000 Hi Tom, We are not offering a bribe to encourage running code, or at most, a very small bribe. We merely make it more acceptable to advertise one's implementation inside an I-D, which authors could have done anyway. The draft does not make any distinction between closed source and open source implementations. I agree that by the nature of software development, it does give some edge to open source. But this was not our goal, and IMO it's just a minor side effect. Many companies develop prototype implementations of protocols before getting them into the real product and making an announcement. Such early implementations can certainly improve the quality of the protocol, by weeding out bugs etc. And I expect at least some authors will find it useful to mention that they have an internal, alpha quality implementation of protocol X in such cases. Thanks, Yaron On 12/24/2012 02:28 PM, t.petch wrote: > I think that this I-D is a bad idea but find it hard to articulate why. > > The idea that running code matters to the IETF is well known, and you > cannot participate for long in the IETF without becoming aware of it, so > promoting it further seems unnecessary. I am often amazed by how much > implementation there is early in the life of a draft when major changes > can and do happen; which is a tribute to the power of the idea. > > Offering a bribe to encourage running code seems unnecesary. I often > see WG Chairs solicit information about implementations at adoption, WG > Last Call, advancement to the IESG and so on, mostly with the proviso > that there is no need to make the information public on the list. > > I think this last significant. There are those who are only to glad to > make their implementations known, to get the publicity thereof, and I > suspect that this is the category that most open source implementations > will come under. > > My own experience of code comes from large, commercial organisations, > whose existence depends on getting a return on the investment they put > into code development - and, critically, maintenance - which then places > constraints on what can be announced and when. It seems unlikely that > the erratic, but invariably late, progress of an IETF I-D can help with > when to make that announcement. > > It seems then that any formalisation of this matter will promote open > source and its afficionados - I am reminded on the 'DoS attack' on the > IETF main list a while back - at the expense of the commercial > developpers. > > Which is enough of a reason for me to think that this is a bad idea. > But as I said, I am more convinced that this is a bad idea than I can > yet articulate. > > Tom Petch > From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Dec 27 04:11:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D851F21F8C87 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:11:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.292 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KdfEzG9fa4A for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com (mail-vb0-f43.google.com [209.85.212.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7FC21F8A4A for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id fs19so9635194vbb.2 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:11:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IDt55pSdeUOKTmrhGH9+UdNt2QRY+yEztSiM06AiRKU=; b=Isz8LCopnaTV7z8iD+kb2w9dLGXJojSA7BK9gZq8IB5tDwfoXgq88iHmgdN1UCFpcU tCJGcBy2BWe+T1gcPgoww7PsBWwC5PEzfrZeUPUG5RVjUOeDBZlxpfDAYkmbZkCWPfip 57j/0/TKHisbN/QK/V+5qgPmc6zNCVMtkEw+USlr2SFyKj9R/LImJ5QaTpMua/Rt4Co7 1ctENwFtK11G7ExFddx12p/bP4qQ9N9l0TVo01Gn/99CCnNufqgQfMIE58aAT2TXO0bf xxj4N9Vhs0W1WL+vy3cQGpIc5d/JheuTMjKXnyrehxKFBVjcRGiaHwB23Vqm0I54g4W0 hhRQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.143.12 with SMTP id sa12mr47617213veb.43.1356610289837; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.145.5 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:11:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <000b01cde1d2$58bbd920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <11027_1355732433_50CED5D1_11027_353_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11925D@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <50CEDD74.9010208@gmail.com> <16116_1355735135_50CEE05F_16116_90_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A11929A@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <000b01cde1d2$58bbd920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:11:29 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "t.petch" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6766506ca5f004d1d47250 Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:11:32 -0000 --047d7b6766506ca5f004d1d47250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, we can ask why the ID? or why not the ID? the answers will be always to make IETF more interesting, On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM, t.petch wrote: > I think that this I-D is a bad idea but find it hard to articulate why. > > I agree that many companies will not want that ID, but they have to live with IETF (the world's Internet organisation), > Which is enough of a reason for me to think that this is a bad idea. > But as I said, I am more convinced that this is a bad idea than I can > yet articulate. > > > bad idea documents to some are good ideas to others, so many bad idea products have customers, but in the world's market only volunteers win and their work become history if represented with consensus in the world's organisations. AB --047d7b6766506ca5f004d1d47250 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,
we can ask why the ID? or why not the ID? the answers will be always= to make IETF more interesting,

On Mon, D= ec 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM, t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrot= e:
I think that this I-D is = a bad idea but find it hard to articulate why.


I agree that many companies will not want that ID= , but they have to live with IETF (the world's Internet organisation),<= br>=A0
Which is enough of a reason for me to think that this is a bad idea.
But as I said, I am more convinced that this is a bad idea than I can
yet articulate.



bad idea documents to some are good ideas to othe= rs, so many bad idea products have customers, but in the world's market= only volunteers win and their work become history if represented with cons= ensus in the world's organisations.

AB

--047d7b6766506ca5f004d1d47250-- From jhaas@slice.pfrc.org Mon Dec 31 07:42:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F9621F8880 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:42:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxTnT-EGLRiw for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33AF21F8877 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E6D4FC3DC; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:42:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:42:07 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Adrian Farrel Subject: Re: Opinions please: draft-sheffer-running-code-01.txt Message-ID: <20121231154207.GA27089@pfrc> References: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <031b01cddbdc$503f0d90$f0bd28b0$@olddog.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:42:09 -0000 On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:25:54PM -0000, Adrian Farrel wrote: > What do you think? Is this the sort of thing you'd like to look at in the > Routing Area? I don't object to seeing an implementation status optional section in the RFCs. What I find a more useful idea is that the implementation status becomes another bit of meta-data tied to the documents in a way that integrates with the tools. At a coarse level, being able to click on a link in the tools for a given document and getting a list of supported implementations is good for early documents. However, once we've gotten a significant number of implementations, such a page becomes noise. (Admittedly, noise that can be filtered with smarter tools. E.g. "Do you support RFC 793?") Tying into the "What do we do with the next-generation RFCs" thread, implementation is effectively a form of satisfying requirements and good RFCs are, often, requirements documents. Picture a bit of meta-data in the document that can be used as a checkbox in a tools-managed implementation report. It'd mean that as a WG chair, the tools work does much of what I need for gathering implementation reports. It'd also mean something a company can register much of the information required in RFPs. In summary, I think it's useful meta-data but requires a lot more discussion tools-wise before it makes sense to adopt longer term. -- Jeff