On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:57:15PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: > > So you think that this is *not* a motivation for the changes and is > *not* something we need to change? Interesting. For what it's worth, quite apart from thinking that the draft in question will do nothing to change the state of affairs with respect to advancement, I also wonder why anyone cares whether documents advance. If someone cares enough, documents will advance. Someone will do the work. For instance, apparently Scott Hollenbeck cared about the advancement of EPP. The Extensible Provisioning Protocol is a full Standard. Meanwhile, the protocol some EPP-using registries employ to update the contents of their DNS zone files (DNS Update, RFC 2136) is a Proposed Standard and has been since 1997. I assert that someone fooling with DNS dynamic update such that the protocol changed incompatably would have far more wide-ranging and deleterious consequences for the Internet than someone altering EPP in a backward-incompatible way. We have a hope of contacting all the EPP users on Earth, to begin with. (None of this is to denigrate EPP or the work that those who moved it along the standards track undertook. I think it is an excellent example of what to do and how to do it. It's just also a handy example of a well-defined protocol with a reasonably tightly packed user community, compared to some other protocols.) If the people who use and rely on a protocol don't care about this maturity-level advancement to do something about it, why should the rest of us care? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf