- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:52:41 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 11/16/05 1:41 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > an implementation > guide instead of the spec, we may want to actually consider to start a > document like that; and I'm volunteering to work on that. That would be > separate from RFC2518bis, and potentially not even an IETF document > (unless the WG would want it to be that way). My measure of a successful protocol is that people find it useful and that means it needs to get implemented. A "hints to implementers" document seems all good and could be IETF document or not - I don't care as long as it helped the adoption of the protocol by making it easier to implement. Example flow documents have helped other groups make it easier to get interoperable implementations. That said, a skilled programmer still needs to be able to correctly implement and understand the protocol by just reading the spec and things it normatively references. The spec should help make this easy not hard. And if there is something that in the specification that a significant percentage of competent implementers might get wrong on the wire, the specification was probably not clear enough.
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 04:52:45 UTC