On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 11:08 AM Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
< stick in the mud >
> It seems to me that this is the point of contention, namely that in certain
> parts of the industry, there is a strong feeling that there is a lot of
> value in widespread deployment of pre-standard protocols as long as the
> versioning is done correctly, and so we do in fact want to promote
> deployment.
and your description of how tls did this with 1.3, 'marked' versions of
internet-drafts, seemed to work well. and those with colder feet could
wait for the rfc. but i note that the triel implementations seemed not
to be deployed in production until the ietf sausage was made.
I don't want to debate the precise meaning of production, but what I will
say is that at in the case of TLS 1.3, we had pre-draft versions on in Release
versions of Chrome and Firefox and serving live domains at Cloudflare
(and I think Facebook and Google, but I'd have to check my notes). This
was actually essential to finding problems because there are environments
which will not run prerelease software.
i have seen some, shall we say, insufficiently well thought out ideas
pushed in wgs. for me, the key here is review and consensus before it
has an ietf label.
Can you be a little more precise about what you mean by "an IETF label".
We pretty routinely have I-Ds that have the draft-ietf prefix without having
consensus on a number of points. Or do you just mean PS, etc.?
-Ekr
