At 09:25 10-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
Fair point. RFC2026 does not in fact make the distinction I made.
Here is what RFC 2026 says about proposed standards:
A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience
might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
before it advances.
RFC 2026 also says that "Implementors should treat Proposed Standards
as immature specifications". Specifications are rarely
retracted. The community would not agree to retract an Experimental
document. Trying to do that with a Proposed Standard is madness. :-)
Here is what it says about Informational documents:
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).
There is a bug in the above. I prefer to avoid quoting RFC 2026
nowadays as nobody really knows what RFC 2026; or to say it
differently, the consensus is that there isn't any consensus about RFC 2026.
At 11:46 10-08-2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
There is an architectural question hiding here: when we use CBOR in
Note that I did selective quoting.
There is a belief that someone would have thought about the
architectural question. After seeing such questions being ignored or
seeing the blank stares in response to an architectural question I
prefer not to even ask about that. It is difficult to find the right
answer to architectural questions. One can only wonder how many
people read RFC 1958 before writing a draft.
Padlipsky's Law states that:
To The Technologically Naive, Change Equals Progress;
To Vendors, Change Equals Profit.
I would read The Relevant Literature instead of RFC 2026.
Regards,
-sm