On 8/10/2013 12:07 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 08:46, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If we foresee multiple solutions being published for this problem space, which is what I'm hearing, then Experimental is the better choice.
By that argument, TCP and UDP should be Experimental, too -- they are both in the transport protocol problem space.
There is nothing Experimental about CBOR.
One of the reasons we find groups choosing to avoid the IETF's standards
process is its unpredictability. Folks here -- both on open discussion
lists and often in the IESG -- think it's acceptable to invoke
spontaneous, personal criteria, rather than pay attention to the rules
we've put into place. We have criteria for the standards labels.
They've gone through IETF consensus and they are supposed to have
something akin to the force of (IETF) law.
If someone feels that this specification does not qualify for Proposed
Standard, they ought to feel obligated to begin with a citation of the
portion of RFC 2026, Section 4.1.1 -- specifying the criteria for
Proposed Standard -- that this specification fails to satisfy.
In particular, they should draw carefully from the second paragraph of
that section.,
By my own reading, this specification looks to be a pretty classic
example of what we say we want for Proposed Standard.
Most of this thread has ignored the IETF's own rules and criteria. As
such, it's wasteful, at best, though I think it's actually destructive,
since it provides fuel to the view that the IETF is a questionable venue
for standards work.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net