[ippm] Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering - implementation policy

Dear BMWG and IPPM,

We have with https://github.com/ietf-ippm/wg-charter/issues/4 a suggestion from Med to consider adding an implementation policy in the join charter proposal.

We chairs have been thinking how this could be addressed best in the charter and came up with the 3 proposals:


  1.  The WG prioritizes documents with implementations.
  2.  The WG requires an implementation for standard track documents. In some cases exceptions can be applied. Whenever such an exception applies, the exception justification must be included in the specification document or its write-up.
  3.  The WG requires two implementations for standard track documents. In some cases exceptions can be applied. Whenever such an exception applies, the exception justification must be included in the specification document or its write-up.

The main differences between the choices are underlined.

We would like to have feedback from both working groups on


  *   wherever an implementation policy should be added or not
  *   wherever those choices make sense or not
  *   which would be the preferred choice and why

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7942 is a good quick read in regards to implementations and implementation status section. Rough consensus and running code is part of the IETF DNA. Personally we think it is helpful for the authors if the working group states what is expected in terms of implementations. There are good reasons for having implementations such as raising quality of the document and ensure interoperability. But there are also reasons to progress quickly. For instance in case where there is only a small document update or a security fix.

Best wishes
Marcus, Giuseppe, Sarah and Thomas

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]