Henning said:
"
Before adding higher hurdles to the Proposed stage, maybe we can
identify whether such a mechanism would have solved real issues in
recent protocol design cases, or just delayed an already exceedingly
long process even more. Maybe BCPs imposing new requirements on WGs
need a "Delay Impact Assessment" section...
"
There are not many cases that come to mind where the neglect of management concerns in a new protocol design turned out to be a "show stopper" (e.g. something that couldn't be fixed later).
For example, I can't think of any cases where lack of a MIB or accounting support at the time of initial RFC publication was directly responsible for a "failure to thrive".
There may be some instances where a protocol was not optimized for certain scenarios (e.g. deployment on cellular networks) so that additional work was needed to develop O&M extensions for those scenarios. But in those cases, maybe the most important deployment scenarios would not necessarily have been predictable in advance. And even if they were, would it have been better to have delayed the publication of the initial RFC for months or years until the issue was addressed?
Maybe others can come up with examples where these concerns turned out to be critical, but at the moment, I'm mostly drawing a blank.
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf