On 2007-10-30 23:18, Eliot Lear wrote:
[I'm changing the subject and cutting off the references list as we seem
to have changed topic.]
Simon,
DS designates a mature standard. If you read the requirements in RFC
2026 for a mature standard it is clear that few of the modern IETF
protocols live up to that standard -- you need to demonstrate
interoperability between two completely independent implementations of
_all_ features in the protocol standard.
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?
What benefit does it bring to anyone to advance a standard to DS? AND
it's a whole lot of work.
So why are we even having an argument about what gets stuck into
requirements for DS? Shouldn't we instead be eliminating it entirely?
Well, as you know Eliot, we tested the IETF's enthusiasm for tackling
that discussion a couple of years ago, and found it lacking. I continue
to believe that to keep the "running code" goal alive, we need something
like the PS to DS promotion available, but we need to change things
to make it more attainable in practice. But if you want to see progress,
you're going to have to show a measure of consensus to the General AD.
Comments on draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-01.txt are welcome.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf