Hi Robin, >> Going to proposed standard without an IETF WG is a VERY >> unlikely path to success. While it is possible, it would >> have to be something that is so uniquely controversial and >> necessary that an AD would be willing to put their >> reputation on the line. > > I guess you meant "uncontroversial".
No, I meant what I said. If it was uncontroversial, an AD would charter the WG and let its momentum carry it. Thus, the only thing that an AD would spend the political capital on would be something controversial. > Without reading the rules, I would guess that the requirements for an > experimental protocol are lower - perhaps not requiring a WG. > However, for anything with such ambitions and implications as a > scalable routing protocol, I can't imagine it would be simple enough > or uncontroversial enough to create substantial protocol standards, > RFCs or not, without attracting a bunch of people and having them > work together to write the code, or at least test it and refine the > proposal on the basis of their wider experience. Not required if you're going down the experimental path. It only needs to pass the laugh test. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
