Proposal: Introduce OTEP Implementation Status

[yurishkuro]

Problem

OTEP 170 has been accepted 3yrs ago. But it is unclear which parts of it, if any, have been implemented in the Specification.

Proposal

Add a mandatory "Implementation Status" field to OTEP's metadata, placed at the top of the OTEP document (below the title). Valid status values:

• not implemented - none of the proposals of the OTEP have been transferred to the Spec
• partially implemented - some of the proposed changes have been applied. A bullet list of included / not included changes should be surfaced. A link to the implementation PR(s) should be included.
• fully implemented - all proposals from the OTEP have been implemented in the Spec. A link to the implementation PR(s) should be included.

[reyang]

We discussed this during the Dec. 11th, 2024 TC meeting. Tracking status is good, we suggest:

1. Have a central place tracking the status, similar to the spec compliance matrix doc.
2. Put the link in all the OTEP documents so the reader can find the status.

[reyang]

@yurishkuro would you want to be a sponsor?

[yurishkuro]

Have a central place tracking the status, similar to the spec compliance matrix doc.

I think this would be an overhead that is not worth it. I would define status directly in the OTEP, because that's where I needed it when I am looking back at an OTEP.

We could then grep the OTEPs and generate a summary table if that's desired.

[yurishkuro]

would you want to be a sponsor?

@reyang yes, I can be