Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section
draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Deborah Brungard Yes

(Benoît Claise) Yes

Comment (2016-06-02 for -01)
No email
send info
Editorial
OLD:

   We
   recommend that the Implementation Status section should be removed
   from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs.  As a result,
   we do not envisage changes to this section after approval of the
   document for publication, e.g., the RFC errata process does not
   apply.

NEW:
   We
   recommend that the Implementation Status section should be removed
   from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs.  As a result,
   we do not envisage changes to this section after approval of the
   document for publication, while the document sits in the RFC-editor 
   queue, e.g., the RFC errata process does not apply.

Editorial:
OLD: 
   The inclusion of Implementation Status sections in Internet-Drafts is
   not mandatory, but the authors of this document wish to encourage
   authors of other Internet-Drafts to try out this simple mechanism to
   discover whether it is useful. 

NEW: 
   
Justification. 
We passed the experimentation phase already (no need to try out this simple mechanism to discover whether it is useful), this is now a BCP. 
Also, this is already covered by:
   This process is not mandatory.  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.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

Mirja Kühlewind Yes

Alexey Melnikov Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2016-06-01 for -01)
No email
send info
I agree with Alissa's comment about wikis, etc. In addition to her reasoning, I think the wiki alternative has the advantage (mentioned in the draft) of preserving the information after RFC publication. Perhaps it would be useful to suggest that, when the implementation status is removed from an RFC at publication, it be preserved (and hopefully maintained) _somewhere_, whether a wiki or something else.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2016-05-31 for -01)
No email
send info
I have a question and a comment.

I noticed that one item missing from the list in Section 2 is a link to the implementation itself, if available. I guess this is sort of implied by the collection of the rest of the other elements listed, but seems like a strange omission nonetheless. Is there a reason for it not to be listed? I understand that this is the same text from RFC 6982.

I realize that documenting implementation status in the way this document recommends is better than some alternatives (like not documenting it, or doing so haphazardly), but I'm not convinced that this really is the best way to feed implementation status information into the IETF process and vice versa. At a minimum a wiki where implementors can make their own updates seems preferable to a document controlled by its authors, yet the wiki option here is described as an alternative rather than the default approach.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Comment (2016-06-01 for -01)
No email
send info
* There are two fields I would have liked to see added into the implementation status section.

1) A datestamp for each implementation to denote when the implementation was added to the draft or was last updated (to determine freshness) 
2) Draft version number that was implemented (as drafts can change significantly during the wg process)

I also agree with Alissa's and Ben's comments about the use of wikis.

(Terry Manderson) No Objection