On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2011-09-07 09:35, Ted Hardie wrote: > ... >> My personal opinion for some time has been that we ought to recognize that >> the previous PS moved into "WG draft" years ago and that anything named an >> RFC should be recognized as something that market will consider a standard. > > And who raised the bar? If you want my opinion on who raised the bar, it was the participants of the IETF that wrote many BCPs that they expected future RFCs to be compliant with. For example, take internationalization or security - 2026 does not have a lot to say about these but various other IETF documents do suggest certain things need to be done. Though there are some BCP I might like to ignore or deprecate, overall, I think the type of things that are considered in an RFC today are much better than the situation was when 2026 was written. I don't believe the IESG raised the bar, I think the community raised it in a series of IETF Last Calls. And I think this is good - if this document were lowing the PS bar from what it is today, I'd be strongly objecting to it. The problem in my mind is getting work done quickly, not figuring out how to lower the quality of our work. Cullen and on the irrelevant side note category 1) for just about all people I work with using or deploying things on the internet, RFC == standard regardless of type of RFC 2) though I don't see this draft helping a lot, I applaud those that are trying to make things better and perhaps when this draft is "running code", I will see that it helps more than I expected. If it does not harm, it's OK with me. The reason I don't' see this changing what happens is that I don't see how this draft changes the incentives for progression beyond PS. 3) we do have a three tracks in widespread use - the first track is "looks like dog food we can ship and see if the dogs will eat it" (PS), "this is awful dog food and I would not feed it to my children but someone thinks they can make a buck on it so lets ship it" (Info), and "many experts consider this dog food either toxic or against their religion but to stop the whining we are feeding it to you any way - sort of like the Canadian red cross tainted blood" (Experimental). I find all these tracks, and the ISE, very useful in allowing the IETF to get important work done. > It wasn't the IESG, it was the market, and more > specifically the product managers and IT managers who adopted RFC conformance > as their criterion. > > I'm a bit fed up with the IESG being blamed for this, rather than being > congratulated on adapting to it. > > Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf