On 7/20/19 12:01 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, 20 July, 2019 10:17 -0400 Warren Kumari
<warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:00 AM Christopher Morrow
<morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:51 AM Keith Moore
<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I believe your statement of intent. But I think it's fair
to realize that there is already tremendous pressure to
deploy implementations before they've been formally
approved, and there's a danger that any kind of
distinguished "mark" will have the (unintended) effect of
promoting deployment of the marked version of a protocol.
regardless of 'published or not' folk will always push for
the early implementation of FOO before it has been 'ratified'.
it's pretty clear that this happens, and that nothing about
this discussion is going to change that.
*I* think that we really want early implementations of FOO
before it has been ratified - without this we don't have the
"running code" part of "rough consensus and running code.
I think the trouble comes in when there are *deployments* of
FOO before it has been ratified....
Exactly. And, at the risk of singing an old song, that was
exactly what Proposed Standard was supposed to be about.
So, with the understanding that I'm not optimistic about this
for the reasons I gave earlier and a quarter-century of history,
consider an alternate proposal: Return Proposed Standard to its
original intended status.
I'm fairly certain that there's far too much baggage and inertia
associated with the current notion of Proposed Standard to do that.
Part of that baggage, of course, includes IESG effectively raising the
bar for Proposed Standard in order to try to make it actually worth
deploying. But part of the baggage is also the well-entrenched practice
of deploying at or before Proposed. And a lot of that is due to market
pressure and "move fast and break things" industry practice that we're
unlikely to have much influence over.
So if we were going to make a significant change to the process, it
seems likely that we either keep Proposed Standard similar to what it
actually is now, and make necessary changes elsewhere in the process
(most likely prior to WGLC, though changes after PS might also be
useful), or we rethink the whole thing and assign new names to the
resulting stages. I have a lot more confidence in the former approach,
because of the tremendous hazard of second-system effect with a clean
sheet approach.
Keith
