On Dec 9, 2024, at 8:28 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx> wrote:
But it is, Joe. The
proof is that the ISE gets requests all the time from people
saying that the need the RFC # in order to gain customer
adoption. That doesn't mean don't EVER get deployed but at
least then we've done our due diligence
And does whenever replies consider the RFC date? (Apr 1 vs Apr?). The various disclaimers?
Even so, there’s no guarantee implementers check. And none if that applies to drafts anyway.
Joe
Eliot
What I care about is this:
The IETF community (and those generating IRTF and
independent submissions) need a way to signal to the
community that draft means just that: it's draft work,
and not intended for broad deployment. Otherwise, we
end up with all of the support issues I mentioned
earlier.
Eliot
There’s no way to avoid that in any public message even it it
is stated explicitly
Lots of things get deployed even when they aren’t in such
messages.
I.e., that doesn’t seem avoidable.
Joe
<OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>
|
