At 07:51 AM 11/18/2010, RJ Atkinson wrote: >IESG Folks, > > The IETF already has taken MUCH MUCH too long handling this document. >Each time this I-D gets revised, new and different issues are raised. >While I am generally OK with the way IETF processes work, >this document is an exception. > > Excessive nit-picking is going on with this document, especially >since it is already globally deployed and clearly works well. >Further, there are multiple interoperable implementations already >deployed, which is an existence proof that the current I-D is >sufficient. This I-D is quite different from most documents heading >to Proposed Standard, because for most I-Ds interoperability hasn't been >shown and operational utility in the deployed world hasn't been shown. > > Perfection is NOT what IETF processes require for a Proposed Standard >RFC. Please stop seeking or asking for perfection from this I-D. > > Please just publish the document as an RFC **RIGHT NOW** >and AS-IS. > > Even if IESG folks really think more document editing is needed, >then still publish it RIGHT NOW and AS-IS. If folks really want >to see document clarifications, that can be done LATER when the >document advances along the IETF standards-track. > > ---- What Ran said. In spades. This document seems to be of reasonable quality, in a niche that probably won't get working group attention written by authors that seem to have a reasonable amount of knowledge in this space who want to place a set of ideas into the IETF space. Proposed standards are supposed to be used to do preliminary evaluations of how to do things - they shouldn't be held up simply because they don't address the universe. Mike _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf