Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code
draft-sheffer-running-code-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2012-12-12
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         Y. Sheffer
Internet-Draft                                                  Porticor
Intended status: Experimental                           December 7, 2012
Expires: June 10, 2013

             Improving "Rough Consensus" with Running Code
                     draft-sheffer-running-code-00

Abstract

   This document proposes a simple-to-implement solution to the problem
   of rewarding Internet protocols that have been implemented over those
   that have not.  Rather than establishing an explicit process, we
   allow authors to publicize their implementation, which should enable
   working groups to treat relevant drafts preferentially.

   This solution is suggested for consideration as a process experiment.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 10, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Sheffer                   Expires June 10, 2013                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Running Code                 December 2012

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.    The "Implementation Status" Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.    Benefits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.    Process Experiment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.1.  Duration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.2.  Summary Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.3.  Success Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.    Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.    Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.    IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   8.    Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   9.    References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
         Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sheffer                   Expires June 10, 2013                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                Running Code                 December 2012

1.  Introduction

   Most IETF participants are familiar with the saying, "rough consensus
   and running code", and can identify with its pragmatic approach.
   However we are all aware of I-Ds that have gone through to
   publication with no implementation.  Some of them may never get
   implemented.

   It was recently proposed [I-D.farrell-ft] to fast-track Internet
   drafts that have associated code.  There are two issues with this
   proposal:

   o  It is unclear if the "fast track" mechanism improves the quality
      of the final RFC or rather detracts from it by reducing the amount
      of review.
   o  The fast-track mechanism can at best cut the overall time until an
      RFC is published by a month or two.  This is meager motivation for
      authors who can typically expect about a 2 year period from the
      initial version of the document until publication.

   Instead, we propose a simpler process, whereby draft authors can
   publicize the availability of running code.  It is up to the
   individual working groups to use this information as they see fit.
Show full document text