> At 07:51 AM 11/18/2010, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >IESG Folks,
> >
> > The IETF already has taken MUCH MUCH too long handling this document.
> >Each time this I-D gets revised, new and different issues are raised.
> >While I am generally OK with the way IETF processes work,
> >this document is an exception.
> >
> > Excessive nit-picking is going on with this document, especially
> >since it is already globally deployed and clearly works well.
> >Further, there are multiple interoperable implementations already
> >deployed, which is an existence proof that the current I-D is
> >sufficient. This I-D is quite different from most documents heading
> >to Proposed Standard, because for most I-Ds interoperability hasn't been
> >shown and operational utility in the deployed world hasn't been shown.
> >
> > Perfection is NOT what IETF processes require for a Proposed Standard
> >RFC. Please stop seeking or asking for perfection from this I-D.
> >
> > Please just publish the document as an RFC **RIGHT NOW**
> >and AS-IS.
> >
> > Even if IESG folks really think more document editing is needed,
> >then still publish it RIGHT NOW and AS-IS. If folks really want
> >to see document clarifications, that can be done LATER when the
> >document advances along the IETF standards-track.
> >
> >
> ----
> What Ran said. In spades.
> This document seems to be of reasonable quality, in a niche that probably
> won't get working group attention written by authors that seem to have a
> reasonable amount of knowledge in this space who want to place a set of ideas
> into the IETF space. Proposed standards are supposed to be used to do
> preliminary evaluations of how to do things - they shouldn't be held up simply
> because they don't address the universe.
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
