I agree, but only partly. A second pass on the documents does have a beneficial effect. This is particularly the case for older 'standards' where the documents simply don't match current requirements (no security, iana considerations for a start) and are often missing key folklore essential for interoperability. Where I think the process goes wrong is that it applies to documents, not protocols. A lot of crud goes through the mill in the name of avoiding recycling at proposed. And when a major revision of an existing protocol is done the revision goes back to proposed before being promited to draft. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:18 AM > To: Simon Josefsson > Cc: IETF Discussion > Subject: 2026, draft, full, etc. > > [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? > > Eliot > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf