Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
At the NEWTRK WG meeting in San Diego in August, I explained my motivation for pursuing this:
This is the lightest-way process for doing what RFC 2026 mandates that I have been able to imagine. Now, we should either execute on that process, OR STOP TALKING ABOUT MOVING TO HISTORIC.
The argument that Bob Braden is making, and you seem to be making - that we should not move "crufty" things to Historic at all - is a rational argument.
But in that case, WE SHOULD UPDATE RFC 2026 TO SAY EXACTLY THAT.
<flame>
HAVING THE IETF CONTINUE TO SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER IS NOT A GOOD THING FOR THE INTERNET.
</flame>
OK, I see that you are trying to make the IETF less moribund, and that might be a good thing, and I applaud you for it.
Actually, the IESG riding herd on the standardization process TO SPEED IT UP is exactly what we thought it should do circa '92-'94. It just didn't do it very well. Instead, they mostly SLOWED things down, since they all want to be "architects" -- instead of just "steering", a pretty boring clerical job, they want to be "captain"s, mostly of the debate team -- and there were the usual politics associated with human beings.
For example, while you are picking on PPP in particular, I'll draw
your attention to RFC-1332 of 1992. Still at Proposed Standard!?!?
Gosh, perhaps there weren't enough interoperable implementations? Or, nobody uses the PPP Internet Protocol CP any more???
Actually, of course, it was reasonably well written, but it turned
out that it couldn't be implemented without asking questions on the
PPP list -- and folks did, and things got done, and products shipped.
So, that wisdom needs to be added to the document, but McGregor wasn't around anymore (he told me he came to IETF last December once again -- I hadn't heard from him in a decade, and haven't heard from him since). The kind of things that happen in a volunteer organization.
Also, there was no sense of urgency, since it was all going to be replaced by IPv6 soon (for the past decade). So, the WG wasted its time on IPv6....
So, here's my promise to you. I'll track down McGregor, and we'll
write something up. I will work on moving my Proposed Standards,
assuming that the IESG is actually _interested_ in doing its job.
The proof will be in the pudding. In earlier times, I expected to go from internet-draft to Proposed Standard in 2 IETF meetings, and to Full Standard in under 1 year on average, 2 years for extremely controversial items.
You see, I disagree with one of your earlier statements. The IESG really DOESN'T have anything more important to do....
-- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf