On 10/27/10 10:35 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 10/27/2010 8:53 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> three level is one level too many. Simplifying things and >> eliminating process clutter is helpful in and of itself. > > > By my reading of the proposal, this means that any spec with a couple of > interoperable implementations can become a (full) Internet Standard. > > This means that the assignment of that final status has nothing to do > with real-world deployment and use, or even inclusion in products. > > In other words, it has nothing to do with demonstrated utility. > > Is that really what the IETF community wants? I think there is a disconnect between the proposal as currently structured and the core principle that the IETF community has always professed: "rough consensus and running code". As I understand it, running code means that the technology has been deployed across the full breadth of the Internet, in services large and small, by individuals and companies and service providers and universities and government agencies and all the other kinds of entities that are connected to the network. The technology doesn't need to be universally deployed, but it does need to be widely deployed. We can't achieve that kind of deployment in 6 months. We might achieve that kind of deployment in 6 years. We also can't measure that kind of deployment through rather informal reports from the producers of two interoperable implementations. And if we measure the wrong thing, we'll get the wrong results. I don't think anyone in the IETF community wants to see the term "Internet Standard" applied to a toy protocol merely because the original designer just happened to convince one of his friends that it would be cool to implement that protocol in a second hobby project. "Internet Standard" is a weighty designation, and I think that to earn it a technology community needs to show some weighty proof. So I'm in favor of two maturity levels because it recognizes reality and simplifies things in a reasonable way, but I think we need to reflect more carefully and completely on how we determine if something is indeed an Internet Standard. And no, I don't yet have text to propose, although I'll get to work on that... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf