Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Document Action: 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section' to Experimental RFC (draft-sheffer-running-code-06.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section' (draft-sheffer-running-code-06.txt) as Experimental RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Stephen Farrell. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-running-code/
Technical Summary 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 and potentially treat 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. Working Group Summary This document was not considered in any WG as there is none chartered to consider this topic, or anything remotely similar. Document Quality This document does not describe a protocol, and so there can be no implementations, per se. However, a number of document authors have already decided to engage with the experiment as noted in section 6.1. A few more authors have also indicated that they will think about participating, and several WG chairs have said that they will encourage their authors to look into it. The document has been circulated on the main IETF list and on the WG chairs list. Both lists generated a small amount of traffic that has led to minor improvments in the document. There is no formal language in the draft tht requires review or testing. Personnel Adrian Farrel (email@example.com) is the Document Shepherd. Stephen Farrell (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the Responsible AD. RFC Editor Note Section 2: OLD: Working group chairs are requested to ensure that this section is not used as a marketing venue for specific implementations. NEW: Working group chairs and ADs are requested to ensure that this section is not used as a marketing venue for specific implementations.