Subject: Re: Draft: IETF listing of open source implementations of IETF specs

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:23:44 -0800 (PST)

> Here is some draft text which tries to permit the mechanism, while 
> attending to the concerns.

What you have so far looks pretty good.

I'd add a couple of items
 
> Open Source IETF Implementations
> --------------------------------
> 
> Creation of "open source" implementations of IETF specifications is often a 
> major contribution to development of support and success for IETF 
> standards.  The decision to create such  implementations, and the effort to 
> create and maintain them, is entirely through private means, outside the 
> IETF.  Without endorsing or certifying such software, but in the interest 
> of assisting access to open source software for IETF specifications, the 
> IETF will maintain a listing of such software.

A lawyer (like me ;-) would probably say <insert disclaimers of warranties
and such here>
 
> Software will be listed which:
> 
> a)  Purports to implement IETF specifications having reached a status of 
> Draft Standard, or better

Why not any prototype at any level?  If someone comes up with an I-D and
says "here's some code I did" do we want to refuse it?

> c)  Permits direct use of the software for research and education, at
> no charge

It would certainly be good for the net if those doing commercial
implementations could make use of the prototypes in some way.  We could
encourage that prototypes be either freely usable in that way or that the
authors consider liberal licences for such a limited use.  We wouldn't
want the IETF involved in the details.  Rather, it would be useful to
suggest, but not require, that those submitting prototypes provide a
contact name/address for such purposes.

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:23:44 -0800 (PST)

--karl--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:55:37 -0500

> says "here's some code I did" do we want to refuse it?

Well, I see three issues here:

1) We certainly want to at least check that the person donating the
code has in fact passed it past whatever 'Intellectual Properties'
office they have, to make sure the IETF isn't accepting something
that the person's employer considers proprietary, their property, etc.

2) Sample code for an I-D should expire at the same time as the I-D.

3) Is there a concern that some vendor will ship code based on an I-D
sample implementation, and then not upgrade in a timely fashion.

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:55:37 -0500

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 10:40:29 +0800

At 11:23 AM 2/1/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
A lawyer (like me ;-) would probably say <insert disclaimers of warranties
>and such here>

Right.  I'm assuming that the legal concerns about liability are a) serious 
and real, and b) easily handled by standard text.  As noted, this won't be 
the first time an organization does something like this.

I certainly do not think we should ignore the legal concerns, but I suspect 
that it's pretty easy to solve if we 1) have sufficiently mechanical, 
objective rules for qualifying code to list, and 2) attach appropriate 
disclaimers.

>>>>a)  Purports to implement IETF specifications having reached a status 
>>>>of Draft Standard, or better
>

Adding to the other comments, I'll explain my reasoning, but want to stress 
that I only offered  a straw proposal.  If there is a general feeling that 
the timing should be different, it's certainly fine with me.

Anyhow, my own reasons for suggesting Draft as the threshhold:

1.  The IETF already has a listing mechanism for Draft, namely 
documentation of interoperable implementation.  With luck, the new 
procedure becomes a relatively small increment over the existing one.

2.  The idea for the mechanism is intended for long-term utility, rather 
than anything short-term.  I'm assuming that a specification that is under 
development has a highly active and communicating community, and that all 
its activity and communication will include telling each other about new 
implementations.  My original suggestion was triggered by a desire to help 
longer-term new folks, who show up when things are pretty static and need 
help finding source code.

3.  Things prior to Draft are pretty volatile and for the reason, above, I 
think that it could become a major hassle to deal with this list during the 
early stages.  Worse, there is a fair chance that some companies will try 
to use it for short-term marketing "gaming".  Frankly, I think that using 
it for long-term gaming (i.e., market visibility and credibility) is just 
dandy, but that the near-term volatility makes it likely that the marketing 
benefit will not be offset by community benefit.  In other words, it's too 
likely that some companies will put forward some trash, just so they can be 
listed.  I think something showing up later is more likely to be legitimate.

>>implementations could make use of the prototypes in some way.  We could

I agree, but was trying both for a highly simple (and simplistic) rule and 
one that has minimal administrative overhead.  Note that the rule does not 
prohibit the offerrer of the code from being nice to the commercial 
sector.  Rather, the rule is intended to define a lower limit of 
acceptability.  In any event, if anyone prefers more sophisticated wording, 
I invite them to provide it; I didn't feel competent to the task.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:[email-masked]>             Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
                                         Serdang, Selangor 43400  MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464             675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 10:40:29 +0800

d/

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:10:37 -0800

On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 10:40:29AM +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
[...]
> listed.  I think something showing up later is more likely to be legitimate.

There is another way to keep people honest -- as part of the site run
an archived mail list where discussion about the code could take
place.  Junk code would be pretty quickly identified.

The archive would most likely be run by a few volunteers.  In the
ideal we would harness some of the energy of the Open Source (r)
community, and, even more ideal, a body of volunteers that improved
the code might develop.  A body of really high-quality, freely
available, *well-maintained* implementations of IETF standards in an
organized, well-known place would be quite a resource.  Maybe ISC is 
the right place for such a thing -- it really isn't much different 
than what it is currently doing -- just scaled up.

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

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:10:37 -0800