Dave Cridland wrote: > On Tue Oct 30 10:18:08 2007, Eliot Lear wrote: >> 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. Not to mention the value of incorporating the results of implementation and deployment experience (though perhaps that's part of what you call reviewing past specifications). I suppose that incorporating experience, reviewing the specification, and the like can be done by cycling at PS forever, so it's not clear whether DS and IS really matter. However, it may be that those good things happen only by advancing a technology to DS. If so, then perhaps it's OK that doing so is "a whole lot of work" as Eliot says. After all, advancing an I-D to RFC is a whole lot of work, too, but we generally consider that process to be beneficial. Maybe we need to more clearly enunciate the benefits of advancing a technology to DS? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf