Re: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X)' to Experimental RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:01 -0700 Andy Bierman
<ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> I was going to raise this issue, but I deleted the mail when I
> realized
> this is going to be an Experimental RFC (according to the
> subject line).
> 
> I don't think it harms interoperability to introduce an
> experiment
> into the mix.  If deployment and useful tools follow, then
> maybe
> a later revision can move to the standards track.

Andy,  I just found Ted's note explaining that the writeup was
just an error.  These things happen and my reaction was a little
strong (pre-IETF tension, I think).  

Certainly, making it an experimental document helps with the
worst of the problem.  I'd be _seriously_ upset if we were
advancing it onto the standards track with as little context as
we have.  But, even for an experimental document, I still think
it would be highly desirable to get some serious discussion
about "why" and "when" into it to justify publication in any
form.   I think Ned's note summarizes the reasons for that
better than I could.  I also think that, if the author took
Ned's note, Phillip's recent one, contemplated both for a while,
and then turned the combination into a "rationale and context"
section (with appropriate acknowledgements, of course), that
none of us would have anything significant to complain about.  

best,
   john


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]