Subject: Re: Re: Official listing of "public" reference software for IETF

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:41:49 -0500 (EST)

Dave suggests:
> how about using a working group rough consensus process, agreeing to list
> software which the cognizant working believes is appropriate?

I'm far from convinced that IETF working groups would make all that
reliable a set of software reviewers

software to implement many of today's IETF standards is quite
complex and it would take a lot of work to be sure that all aspects
work correctly

I'd also be worried about the liability issues (people do throw lawyers
at each other over lots of things and I can just see the incoming lawyers
if some company finds out the reference implementation they 
are relying on for some critical service is broken )

if someone wants to maintain a web page of self-anounced open
implementations that could be quite helpful but having the IETF 
approve or validate implementations seems like playing goad the
lawyer

Scott

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:40:42 -0800

On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 08:41:49PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote:
[...]
> approve or validate implementations seems like playing goad the

I agree with you totally, except I think that "someone" should be the
IETF.  It's the word "Official" that is the problem.  Concretely, I
would like to be able to go to the IETF web site, click on the
"sample implementations" button, go to a page covered with legal
boilerplate in 42 point type that says that these implementations are
not guaranteed in anyway, but were submitted in good faith by
implementers of protocols.  Below the boilerplate would be another 
button that would take me to a catalog of sample implementations.  I 
scroll down to the appropriate spot, find the protocol I am 
interested in (say PPP), and find 4 or 5 implementations that I can 
study.

This would be a valuable service.  While it was pointed out that you 
can always search the web for such things, in my experience such 
searches are pretty hit and miss.

In summary, I don't think the legal liability issue is that big a
deal, and there is no question that having several implementations at
hand to examine would be of great value to implementors.  It could
greatly facilitate the deployment of some standards.  Perfection
isn't required -- they are assumed up front to be imperfect, in the
same way that Internet Drafts are assumed to be imperfect.

Such a process could also tend to generate very high quality code
over time, because it will encourage the comparison of code and
standards by more people.

There is the downside of maintaining such an archive -- it would 
take some work, and maybe ISOC would be a better home for it.  But 
there is a lot of value to this idea, and I would hope that you 
would be looking for ways to make it work, rather than ways to shoot 
it down.

I speak as a relative newcomer to the IETF (only a few years 
involvement), but I think you old-timers are overlooking something 
important here:  There is tremendous educational value to having 
code easily available, and, while the code may raise some questions, 
they will be much higher quality and more focussed questions.

Kent

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]				lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:40:42 -0800

Kent

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:06:46 -0500

I see no reason for the IETF to be a repository or distribution point
for any of this software. Perhaps a slightly different goal would make
more sense. For each given protocol, it would be useful to have a
website that listed known implementations of all sorts. Notations with
each could list the licensing status, derivation of the code, and
whether available in any form (i.e. free or licensed code).

If implementing a protocol which HAS been implemented by others, this
would help provide a list of implementations to test against. If looking
for source code, it'd tell about versions available.

I'd think that knowing which implementations exist and having some place
to find out more information would be in line with the standards nature
of the IETF. In that way no one implementation is promoted as a
"reference" implementation. Certainly I'd have found this particular
type of information repository exceedingly useful at various times.

In addition to being a useful resource for those directly involved in
the protocols and their use, it'd provide a showcase for the real-world
results achieved by and through the IETF.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.            http://www.amaranthnetworks.com

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:06:46 -0500

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:09:54 -0500

Scott Bradner wrote:

> approve or validate implementations seems like playing goad the

This seems to be largely already being done. I know of web pages listing
implementations (open source and otherwise), FAQs, etc. for IPv6, DNS,
RSVP, RTP, RTSP and SIP and there are doubtless many others. It might
indeed be useful if the IETF pages were to contain references to these;
one could always borrow the disclaimer found before the link section of
New York Times articles: hopefully useful, but outside of the editorial
control of the IETF. The effort would be modest, but listings of
implementations are obviously quite useful in the progression from
Proposed to Draft, so if it helps to drive an implementor to those pages
(and get themself listed), this seems to be clearly to the benefit of
the IETF standardization process.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:09:54 -0500

Scott Bradner wrote: