Most of the documents to reach STANDARD status in recent years have been SNMP documents. But even though SNMP has its uses, deployment and use hardly compares with HTTP which is at DRAFT. And nobody should be considering using the SNMP 2.0 protocol which is the one that is allegedly STANDARD as it has no security layer.
I can't see the logic of delaying further at this. The only reason being given for not acting is that it will take time. But not acting has sucked up an enormous amount of time.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
while we are the topic of problems
Russ basically proposes too change the maturity warning label on IETF
standard track RFCs -- remove baby before folding carriage -- this
hardly seems like our biggest problem
The IETF publishes a lot of standards track RFCs each year. Mostly
these are PS (186 in 2009), some DS (3 in 2009), and some S (6 in 2009).
SOME of these technologies are just what the community needs and just
when the community needs them. But too many are
1/ too late for the market - implementations based on IDs
deployed or other technologies adopted
2/ unneeded by the market - does not meet a need that people
think they have
3/ broken - flawed in some way that prevents actual deployment
4/ too complex - hard and costly to correctly implement
5/ unmanageable - cannot be run by humans
Seems to me that the issue of how the IETF can be better at producing
just what the community needs just when the community needs it is more
important than maturity warning labels.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf