[tap-l] RFC for tap protocol

[Aristotle Pagaltzis]

* Michael G Schwern <schwern at pobox.com> [2008-04-14 00:15]:
> When Salve suggested this I burst out laughing because
> "standards" and "Perl" are like oil and water. In Oslo we were
> joking about "ISO TAP", how none of us would have been let in
> the room and the resulting horror that would come out the other
> end.
> 
> After I had my laugh, I let Harald set me straight on how the
> IETF works.

If he hadn’t, I would. I’ve gotten my name on two RFCs, so I saw
how that sausage got made, and it’s definitely not a stuffy
bureaucratic process but rather a kind of standard that would fit
the Perl culture. IETF operates on “rough consensus and working
code” by and large, so Perl folks should take to it like a fish
takes to water.

> If nothing else, it would give us some structure to the process
> of specifying TAP and some legitimacy to the format by
> publishing with the IETF. It would allow TAP to be seen by a
> wider community.

I definitely support this move. In fact, I would strongly
advocate it.

> And hey, haven't you always wanted to publish an RFC?

I wouldn’t mind getting my name on another. :-)

> So I think this is worth pursuing. The RFCs about publishing
> make my eyes glaze over, but hopefully somebody else will plow
> through them.

Well, there’ll probably be two or so working group chairs and an
editor, and it’s them who’ll be doing most of the process work;
they, in turn, will get some handholding from the IETF people
that get assigned to see the WG through the process.

Most contributors will notice almost nothing of the bureaucracy
and won’t have to worry about it.

What they WILL notice is just how much work it is to shake
something down well enough to put the “specification” stamp on
it. Judging by their weblogs, some of the Oslo goers already got
a good taste of that… :-) But I think it’s absolutely worth it.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>