Nut upsuser - Jul 2022 - The IETF wants to remove chapter 8 "Implementation Status"

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Perhaps you could move the Implementation Status section to a new, 
> informational RFC, and simply cite that new RFC in the base document?
Generating a whole new RFC just for a couple of paragraphs is a lot of work, 
which editors try to avoid.
> Is there any intent to have the nut distribution be a reference 
> implementation,
If you visit 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=UPS
you will see all the IANA registrations of Port Number/Transport Protocol for 
UPSs.  NUT is 3493/tcp, and has already been updated to point to the future RFC.
It is a pleasure to see NUT standing out from the crowd as a reference 
implementation, but from a purely administrative point of view its a little 
premature.
> ...which used to be a thing but I don't know how those winds are
blowing these
> days.
"Working code and rough consensus" was the IETF creed, but this now
depends on
the working group.  Some (the routing WGs?) insist on multiple implementations, 
others none at all.  I wonder how many of the numerous YANG RFC's have
working
code?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I have not really dug in, but if the editors say this is what they want
> as their consensus view, rather than just one of them, then moving to
> appendix seems ok.   In terms of making the text available to readers
> and preserving for posterity, section vs appendix doesn't really
matter.
Agreed.  I will ask that subsections 8.2, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3 "Recommended 
Minimum Support" be moved to Appendix A, new section A.4.

Roger