[tap-l] Test Anything Protocol as an IETF draft/RFC

[Lisa Dusseault]

That's a fair concern, but I can't say that I've seen that pitfall for  
certain.  I worried about the same thing in the calendaring area with  
the CalConnect consortium where implementors come and do  
interoperability events and talk to customers, and the CALSIFY WG  
where the specs get written-- and that's not just two lists but about  
half a dozen in CalConnect plus the CALSIFY list. Seems to be working  
so far.

FWIW, there's no reason why developers can't join the same IETF list  
as the "spec theorists".  If the WG chair finds the overall traffic  
level to be manageable and reasonable progress made on the specs when  
that's needed, then the lists  can usefully include topics other than  
what the specs should say.   I say this as somebody who is not always  
just a spec theorist :)

We can also schedule hackathons or interop test events in and around  
the IETF should that ever become desirable.

Lisa

On Jul 21, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:

> David E. Wheeler said:
>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 09:39, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>
>>>> What options do we have? (I can't imagine this is a new issue :)
>>>
>>> At some point, it would be good to move to an IETF.org domain.
>>
>> Seems okay to me. We should keep tap-l for discussion of  
>> development and whatnot, and use the IETF mail list just for  
>> discussion specific to creating a draft. Make sense?
>
> I'm thinking that separating the discussions about the draft from  
> the implementation details (and experiences and lessons) might not  
> be a good thing. I'm afraid that only the "spec theorists" would  
> join the IETF list and that the guys using and developing TAP tools  
> stay in tap-l, increasing the likelyhood that important  
> implementation details won't be communicated to the "spec  
> theorists." (We actually had a situation like at the Perl QA  
> Hackathon, where a spec on day 1 was found to be too difficult to  
> implement on day 2, and if the "spec theorists" of day 1 weren't the  
> same people who were going to implement it on day, we wouldn't have  
> catched it so quickly.)
>
> Perhaps I'm worrying too much.
>
> Has there been any similar headaches earlier within the IETF  
> workgroups?
>
>
> - Salve
>
> -- 
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> sub AUTOLOAD{$AUTOLOAD=~/.*::(\d+)/;seek(DATA,$1,0);print#  Salve  
> Joshua Nilsen
> getc DATA}$"="'};&{'";@_=unpack("C*",unpack("u*",':4@,$'.#     <sjn at foo.no 
> >
> '2!--"5-(50P%$PL,!0X354UC-PP%/0\`'."\n"));eval "&{'@_'}";   __END__  
> is near! :)