> [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. It is less clear, however, that all of its many features have been implemented interoperabiy. > IMAPv4 is only PS and yet has MASSIVE deployment. The main barrier to IMAP moving to draft is the large number of normative references that first need to move first. Getting RFC 2822 to draft is a necessary first step and we're working on that. But what about TLS? The now-widespread use of TLS+plain has solved a lot of problems for appplications but has created a serious obstacle to standards track advancement. Perhaps a downreference exception needs to be made here, but if so that needs to be approved in advance because nobody is going to bother going through all the pain of documenting interoperability without first being sure that a normative reference issue isn't going to render their work meaningless. > LDAP is only PS and is MASSIVELY deployed. I suspect the main issue is the same as for IMAP. > 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. I really don't think that's true. The problem is rather than people have (correctly IMO) assessed that while the benefits of DS are real they just aren't worth the cost. The question, then, is whether or not the cost can be lowered without compromising the status, and if so, how. My personal opinion is that major loosening of the downref rules as well as less nit-picking on feature lists would help a lot without damaging the brand in any significant way. > 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? I agree with Brian that this isn't the answer. But the current situation isn't right either. We need to focus on what's important, which is real world interoperability. Things have gotten too complex for a more exhaustive academic approach to be viable. Ned P.S. I actually started working on a feature checklist for RFC 3501 at one point but after looking at the issues with normative refrences I simply gave up. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf