> 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. +1 Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf