On Fri May 6 11:44:48 2011, John Leslie wrote:
Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> To quote from draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00 (paraphrasing
newtrk).
>
> 4/ there seems to be a reinforcing feedback loop involved:
vendors
> implement and deploy PS documents so the IESG tries to make
the
> PS documents better
>
> This is the core issue, which far from addressing, the proposal
tries
> to discard the feedback loop, stick its fingers in its ears, and
sing
> la-la-la-I'm-not-listening.
Please excuse the hyperbole -- Dave's just trying to get our
attention.
I concede that the draft neither has fingers nor sings; the point
remains valid however.
> The fact remains that vendors treat PS maturity RFCs as
"standards".
> By reverting to the letter of RFC 2026, this will undoubtedly
> increase confusion - indeed, it's apparent that much of the
deviation
> from RFC 2026 has been related to this very confusion.
Nothing we put in a rfc2026-bis will change this. Nothing we put
in
a rfc2026-bis _CAN_ change this.
I'm in total agreement with this, which is why I'm so against a
proposal which exacerbates the issue.
If we want to change this, we need to start putting
warning-labels
in the _individual_ RFCs that don't meet a "ready for widespread
deployment" criterion.
I do not believe this will work, actually.
In general, I think boilerplate warning messages get ignored - people
quickly learn to expect and ignore them as routine - and I don't
think we're likely to be able to construct unique and varying warning
messages for every RFC we publish.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf