Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section
draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-03

[Ballot comment]
Editorial
OLD:

  We
  recommend that the Implementation Status section should be removed
  from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs.  As a result,
  we do not envisage changes to this section after approval of the
  document for publication, e.g., the RFC errata process does not
  apply.

NEW:
  We
  recommend that the Implementation Status section should be removed
  from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs.  As a result,
  we do not envisage changes to this section after approval of the
  document for publication, while the document sits in the RFC-editor
  queue, e.g., the RFC errata process does not apply.

Editorial:
OLD:
  The inclusion of Implementation Status sections in Internet-Drafts is
  not mandatory, but the authors of this document wish to encourage
  authors of other Internet-Drafts to try out this simple mechanism to
  discover whether it is useful.

NEW:
 
Justification.
We passed the experimentation phase already (no need to try out this simple mechanism to discover whether it is useful), this is now a BCP.
Also, this is already covered by:
  This process is not mandatory.  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.

[Ballot comment]
* There are two fields I would have liked to see added into the implementation status section.

1) A datestamp for each implementation to denote when the implementation was added to the draft or was last updated (to determine freshness)
2) Draft version number that was implemented (as drafts can change significantly during the wg process)

I also agree with Alissa's and Ben's comments about the use of wikis.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Alissa's comment about wikis, etc. In addition to her reasoning, I think the wiki alternative has the advantage (mentioned in the draft) of preserving the information after RFC publication. Perhaps it would be useful to suggest that, when the implementation status is removed from an RFC at publication, it be preserved (and hopefully maintained) _somewhere_, whether a wiki or something else.

[Ballot comment]
I have a question and a comment.

I noticed that one item missing from the list in Section 2 is a link to the implementation itself, if available. I guess this is sort of implied by the collection of the rest of the other elements listed, but seems like a strange omission nonetheless. Is there a reason for it not to be listed? I understand that this is the same text from RFC 6982.

I realize that documenting implementation status in the way this document recommends is better than some alternatives (like not documenting it, or doing so haphazardly), but I'm not convinced that this really is the best way to feed implementation status information into the IETF process and vice versa. At a minimum a wiki where implementors can make their own updates seems preferable to a document controlled by its authors, yet the wiki option here is described as an alternative rather than the default approach.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status
Section'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-05-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a simple process that allows authors of
  Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by
  including an Implementation Status section.  This will allow
  reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
  that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of
  valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented
  protocols more mature.

  This process is not mandatory.  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.  This document obsoletes RFC 6982,
  advancing it to a Best Current Practice.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.