--On Thursday, 06 December, 2007 19:33 -0800 Eric Burger
<eburger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 61 of the 67 have nmemonic identifiers, like SMTP and MAIL. I
> would also lean toward IETF-SMTP-2008.
A proposal from a family that, as you might recall, has been
discussed many times and gone nowhere. Of course, as soon as
one attaches a date, one has solved a problem different from
"stable identifier for the current version of the standard".
And, of course, unless these can identify other than Full
Standards, they don't solve any of the STD problem that concerns
me.
And, FWIW, if you think "MAIL" is the identifier for some
protocol or set of protocols, you have illustrated another
problem. :-)
> I actually have mixed feelings about interop. Part of me says
> that going to Internet Standard is mostly about removing
> cruft. However, in theory, a full regression test is not over
> the top. I still vote for ad hoc. Let the IESG or, since there
> are so few, the IAB, decide if this particular revision of
> that protocol warrants a full redo of the interoperability
> report.
This works for me as long as we solve the STD problem in some
way. And simply throwing them away so they aren't misleading
would fall into the class of options I'd consider a solution.
I'd like to hear from others. If no one else cares, I'll just
generate an I-D/ proposal to abolish STDs on the grounds that
the 'running code' doesn't work.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf