On Tue Oct 30 10:18:08 2007, Eliot Lear wrote:
I think we can all agree that the calendaring standard is mature.
We
are in the process of doing what I would consider to be a relatively
minor update to it, and yet it is only PS. IMAPv4 is only PS and
yet
has MASSIVE deployment. LDAP is only PS and is MASSIVELY deployed.
SIP
is all over the place and it is only PS as well. And so it's pretty
clear that nobody cares about DS or IS. What's more, why should
they?
Well, we don't, but mostly because we tend to know what the actual
status of a particular protocol is. Usually.
But not always, especially when it falls outside our area of
expertise, and far more importantly, people not directly involved in
the IETF at all don't know.
I've suggested before that the advancement of a specification is a
highly overloaded action - it implies that the IETF thinks it's a
good idea, it implies that the specification is sound, it implies
it's well deployed.
What benefit does it bring to anyone to advance a standard to DS?
AND
it's a whole lot of work.
But it does do some good to review past specifications and note if
they're still ok, it does do some good to note that specifications
are solid, and it does do some good to say they're widely deployed.
Sadly, this information does not get captured anywhere.
So why are we even having an argument about what gets stuck into
requirements for DS? Shouldn't we instead be eliminating it
entirely?
And lose even the small amount of information it does give people?
I think we'd do better to decide what information we want to be able
to provide, and provide it, rather than wondering how many levels of
overloaded information we should have.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxx
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf