Please note that I didn¹t make a proposal. I can live quite well with a misalignment of IETF terminology and reality as perceived outside the IETF. So can the industry, I think. What I was commenting on is that it does not make sense to me to re-iterate the mantra of ³Experimental RFCs not being standards², when there is ample evidence that a large percentage of the outside world views this differently. It seems to take only the intervention one of the (security / congestion control / anti-patent / ...) communities of the IETF to move a document intended for standard¹s track to the, arguably, second-class RFC status known as ³Experimental². Again, that¹s not a problem for me, for the reason stated above. Stephan
On 3/9/09 9:38 PM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email protected]> wrote: > When British Leyland shut down the assembly line for the Triumph TR7 they > found a note that said, 'Your proposal to prime and paint the TR7 bodyshells > before moving them a hundred miles in open rail cars to the assembly plant has > been made before. If only stopping rust was so simple'. > > The fact that a proposal has been made before and ignored does not diminish > its value. > > How frequently does a sensible proposal have to be made to receive a > susbstantive response? > > > > > From: [email protected] on behalf of Steven M. Bellovin > Sent: Mon 3/9/2009 6:40 PM > To: Stephan Wenger > Cc: SM; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz > > On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:35:31 -0700 > Stephan Wenger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > The IETF might view it this way. Large parts of the >> > (standardization) world does not. One example in my field of work is >> > FLUTE, and the surrounding infrastructure of frameworks and FEC >> > codes. To the best of my recollection, these specifications were >> > originally issued as Experimental RFCs, for reasons of congestion >> > control worries. (They are also heavily encumbered, but that was not >> > really an issue according to my recollection.) The Experimental >> > status did not stop 3GPP and other SDOs to normatively reference >> > them, and treat them just like any other IETF RFC. Note that 3GPP >> > could NOT do that with a journal publication... I could name more >> > examples, both when it comes to referencing SDOs and referenced RFC >> > types (including normative references to at least Historic, Obsolete, >> > Informational). > > This is, I think, the second- or third-most-common topic on the IETF > list: should we rename the document series to prevent that... (#1 is > non-ASCII formats for RFCs; #2 -- by volume of postings, rather than > frequency of discussion -- might be IPR.) > > Other than giving up the RFC label for Experimental documents, it's > hard to see what the IETF can do. > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
