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

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:26:52 -0500 (EST)

Kent (as a youth) thinks:
> I think you old-timers are overlooking something
> important here:  There is tremendous educational value to having 
> code easily available

well, as an old-ish-timer I agree and expect there would be
a safe (liability-wise) to have such a disclaimer-loaded page
and think it would be a good thing to do - but I'm not in favor
of any type of offical IETF blessing or working group review

Scott

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:30:09 +0400

Hi...
just a thought..

> of any type of offical IETF blessing or working group review

What if the RFC editor included as part of
RFC 2223 (Instructions to Authors) another editoral
policy to include a 'code reference section' where the approriate

links /ftp servers/ web servers are included /specified  *when
required*
by the RFC authors.

The authors *must* include  this as part of the RFC
documentation process and  IAB/IESG *recommends*
such a practice.

The normal bioler plate, disclamiers and updates to code,
would be the *total* liability of the RFC authors as they
will maintain the code,wither it interoprates , buggy or
fully compliant.

Hence IETF would not be getting into the source business.

/pete

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:30:09 +0400

Hi...
just a thought..

/pete

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:11:45 -0800 (PST)

> Hence IETF would not be getting into the source business.

if this is on RFCs, then indeed the IETF has just endorsed that source.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:11:45 -0800 (PST)

randy

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:33:05 +0400

Randy

> if this is on RFCs, then indeed the IETF has just endorsed that

The idea would be just that,  the source document endorses where
the source code is obtainable ?? without any further liability on
the
working of actual code base !!

BTW.. Yes I should have mentioned that the IETF *should not*
be getting into the *source code* businesss.

/pete

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:33:05 +0400

Randy

/pete

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:47:22 -0800 (PST)

> the source code is obtainable ?

if 'document' is an ietf endorsed document, e.g. rfc, that's where you cross
the line.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:47:22 -0800 (PST)

randy

---

From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:13:06 PST

The IETF already maintains a list of software that implements
RFCs, namely: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html

Why don't we just work at making the list a little more useful?
Many of the implementation reports are just lists of companies.
For HTTP, we created a more extensive table of implementations
and features (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Forum/Reports/)
by asking people to fill out a form (http://www.agranat.com:1998/).

Perhaps we could extend this practice a bit?

a) allow implementation reports for all standards-track RFCs,
   not just Draft Standard
b) ask people to include pointers to source code, if it's
   available
c) allow for updates and additions over time

Of course, allowing updates creates an ongoing responsibility
for maintenance; right now, the implementation reports are
created and edited once, by the working group chair.

I don't think the working group chairs can sign up to review
implementation reports forever, so we'll have to be careful
before we start offering rapid updates. In the case of HTTP,
the 'review' was basically just a sanity check: some people
apparently stumbled across the form and filled out just to
see what would happen; I got a couple of reports where the
implementation name was included, but none of the feature
implementation elements were there.

Asking people to list which optional features they implement
is actually a reasonable quality check of the implementation
report; you need to be very familiar with the details
of the implementation, and not just a vague claim that
it 'implements RFC mumble'. 

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter

---

From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:13:06 PST

Larry

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:58:16 -0500

> RFCs, namely: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html

The basic concept is there, but hardly enough information.

> c) allow for updates and additions over time

I was thinking a proper website and NOT implementation reports. This is
the kind of info that needs to change over time. I'd like to be able to
look somewhere for, say, OSPF, and see who has implementations, where
the code was derived from, platforms it's available on, whether source
is available for free or license. If I were developing a new OSPF
implementation, or a new platform supporting OSPF, I'd be able to use
the list to decide which vendors' products to test against.

> created and edited once, by the working group chair.

I think it'd make more sense for this to be a semi-automated database
system with the IETF webmaster or some other such person overseeing it.

> it 'implements RFC mumble'.

It'd also help a lot when trying to figure out the scope of impact when
a feature is going to get broken by something newer. An example: the
directed broadcast draft I submitted affects something in Mobile IP. A
few folks implemented the feature in Mobile IP but didn't think it was
particularly useful so it's probably not a big deal. If I knew who else
had implemented it, I'd have been able to ask those folks directly.

Dan

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

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:58:16 -0500

Dan