{I've changed the subject}
Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'm very concerned about this part:
>>
>>> A key point in the protocol development process was the iteration the
>>> working group did between protocol updates, and implementations and
>>> testing. Certain draft protocol versions were labelled by the working
>>> group as "implementation drafts", and the participants -- many web
>>> browser and web server providers -- updated their implementations and
>>> tested out the protocol changes. Most of the interim meetings
>>> included part of a day spent on hands-on interoperability testing and
>>> discussion. The result is a thoroughly validated protocol that has
>>> been shown to interoperate and that meets the needs of many major
>>> stakeholders.
>>
>> It sure seems to me like those "implementation drafts" are what used
>> to be called proposed standards.
> Proposed standards also have to go through working group last call, AD
> review, IETF last call, IESG review, SecDir review, GenArt review, a
> six-week waiting period in the RFC editor’s queue, and AUTH48. I don’t
> think we can afford to do that for a single document every 4-6 months,
> like httpbis did for HTTP/2.
Thank you, you see to have found a list of things that we could "not do"
prior to PS, and that would reduce a huge amount of work.
>> What I see is a new step in the standardization process, along with a
>> view that the step after internet-draft seems to include proven
>> interoperability.
> Running code has always been part of the deal, at least as something we
> would like to have. Besides, the process continued even when some
> implementations did not interoperate.
Running code is usually the bar between PS and IS.
Of course, we like running-code, and the earlier the better.
>> I propose that this document skip PS, and go straight to Internet
>> Standard to accurately reflect the status of this document.
> There is currently pretty close to zero deployment in the real world. A
> bunch of lab implementations that managed to interoperate in a bake-off
> is not an indication of something ready for Internet Standard. But
> don’t you agree that publishing a document with the bunch of lab
> implementations is better than publishing it without them?
Of course; I also worry that we are our own worst enemies: we raise the bar
very high, and then we become overworked, and can't find superheroes that can
do everything.
I get the impression that SPD has had a lot of real world use.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature