Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

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

 



Hi Dave,
At 11:06 31-10-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
Note that the motivation for Olaf's draft is the misunderstanding by others of the nature and worth of Proposed Standards documents. We do not have complaints about the actual /quality/ of the specifications, but of the language describing their formal status.

Yes.

In effect, such folk are distracted by some of the words in RFC 2026. We can't fix their style of reading or limitations in how they integrate information and also we cannot ignore such folk.

The IAB sent a comment about ICT standardization to a directorate of the European Commission in 2009. My interpretation of the intent is that it was so that the IETF is recognized more broadly among standardization organizations. The comment stated that the IETF and IAB exert no control over the nature or identity of participants in IETF activities. Some parts of the comment was about standards making. Most of the comments are usually about the process instead of the quality of the specifications. If IETF ignores such folks (see above) it can affect where the RFCs can be used.

In Section 2:

  "Hence IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they
   are ready for the usual market-based product development and
   deployment efforts into the Internet."

I am not comfortable with having that text in BCP 9. The argument up to now has been running code and that that is the line which has been used for test of quality. A better test of quality might be someone who has not followed the working group and who can implement the specification. There is also the IPR test. That is also one of the issues mentioned by the audience which the document targets.

Regards,
-sm




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