+1
you shouldn' need to be an IETF insider to actually understand IETF standards.
John
Sent from my Nokia N900.
----- Original message -----
> Not THIS again. Let's look at a few of the standards that are commonly
> used today:
>
> HTTP: DS
> SNTP: PS
> SIP: PS
> IPv6 Addressing Architecture: DS
> SMTP: DS & Full standard
> MPLS-VPNs: PS
> BGPv4: DS
> MIME: DS
> XMPP: PS (although it seems the real work goes on elsewhere)
> OSPF: Full standard
> RIPv2: full standard
> BFD: not to be found
> VRRP: DS
> Radius: DS
> DNS base: full standard
> DNS components: varying
> SNMPv3: full (but long before anyone actually used it)
>
> And so you will forgive people who seem confused by our quaint notion
> that there are flavors of standards. We don't do a good job of
> describing maturity with our standards levels. Perhaps we do a good job
> of using the standards levels to make a recommendation. How much SNMPv1
> and v2 is out there still? Apparently not many people are listening to
> that recommendation.
>
> Does standard matter at all any more? I think so. A good number of the
> base protocols that are run on the computer I type this from are
> actually IETF standards. Yeah (except for software and device
> management. We blew, and continue to blow that one).
>
> So let's get real. John's draft was the right thing to do for NEWTRK.
> But do we really have the stomach for it? Last time out we did not.
>
> Eliot
> ps: see you all in Orange County, where I'm sure this endless debate
> will continue.
>
> On 11/11/09 5:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > From the perspective of the world outside the IETF, this is already
> > > the case. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC...
> >
> > I don't think this is a truth universally acknowledged.
> >
> > I have heard the IETF disparaged a number of times on account of
> > "hardly having any standards". For example, a full Standard is equated
> > by some people with an ITU-T Recommendation with the implication that
> > a DS and PS are significantly inferior to a Recommendation.
> >
> > Whatever we might think of the value of this statement and the motives
> > of the people who make it, it is clear that the names of the different
> > levels of RFC are perceived outside the IETF.
> >
> > Over dinner this evening we wondered whether something as simple as
> > looking again at the names of the stages in the three phase RFC
> > process might serve to address both the perceptions and the
> > motivations for progression.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf