Re: Expiring a publication - especially standards track documents which are abandoned

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/4/11 7:23 AM, todd glassey wrote:
There are any number of IETF RFC's which were published and then accepted in the community under the proviso 'that they would become IETF standards' which in many instances they do not. Further many of them are abandoned in an uncompleted mode as standards efforts.

To that end I would like to propose the idea that any IETF RFC which is submitted to the Standards Track which has sat unchanged in a NON-STANDARD status for more than 3 years is struck down and removed formally from the Standards Track because of failure to perform on the continued commitment to evolve those standards.

Why this is necessary is that the IETF has become a tool of companies which are trying to get specific IETF approval for their wares and protocols - whether they are open in form or not. The IETF entered into a contract with these people to establish their standard and published those documents on the standards track so that they would be completed. Since they have not been completed as IETF Standards the Project Managers for those submissions have formally breached their contract to complete that process with both their WG members who vetted those works as well as the rest of the IETF's relying parties.

As such it is reasonable to put a BURN DATE on any Standards Track effort which has stalled or stopped dead in its tracks for years.

Todd Glassey
Todd,

I do not hold that view. It should not require careers be dedicated in the advancement of specifications. As in programming, many of these specifications should become components supporting more complex protocols. While the current publications tools help tremendously in allowing interested parties determine the current state of a specification, I have not found standard's track informative.

It seems there should be an effort to better objectify specifications, in other words, allow them to be deconstructed into separate elements. Above the deconstruction, allow higher level organizations to offer a breakdown of options, relative use, current and best practices. This high level organization should not include any normative language, other than in arranging existing specifications. It would be with this higher level arrangement where status ranking makes more sense.

-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]