Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > [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. I'm not convinced these protocols qualify for DS status. DS status requires a lot, specifically that ALL features in the document have been demonstrated interoperable, and that their normative references are DS. I implemented IMAP and wrote <http://josefsson.org/nnimap/buggy-imap-servers.html>, I'm pretty sure others implementing other protocols have had similar experiences and frustration. > 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. Yes, it is a lot of work, and the benefit seems marginal. But I think that if you want to claim that all of those protocols are mature enough, the onus is on you to do that work. > So why are we even having an argument about what gets stuck into > requirements for DS? Because Brian wrote a draft... > Shouldn't we instead be eliminating it entirely? I'm not sure about this. I used to think DS was useless, but it doesn't seem actively harmful. I think the problem is that we don't have a replacement for it today. If we can come up with a scheme to allow the community to know which standards are mature and which are not, and that scheme actually works, I think we could eliminate the DS way. But until that happens, I'm not sure. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf