On 19-Jul-07, at 11:38 , Adam Roach wrote:
On 7/19/07 10:19 AM, Frank W. Miller wrote:
FM: While I applaud the time and effort that the large vendors have
obviously invested in this, this is a qualitative statement.
Perhaps Cisco
and/or Microsoft have empirical data they would be willing to
share about
robustness and performance?
That's the kind of data you get between "proposed standard" and
"draft standard" -- not *prior* to publication. I'm not sure why
there's so much noise about setting the bar much, much higher for
ICE than we do for other IETF proposals.
Just to play the other side of the fence ...
In theory, RFCs advance from "proposed standard" to "draft standard"
to "full standard".
In practice, this rarely happens.
In practice, once an RFC is published, it is either accepted and
becomes a de-facto standard, or is ignored. Rarely is it revised and
advanced along the standards track. And it is often difficult to
discover which status (de-facto standard or ignored) a particular RFC
actually has.
Look at SIP, for example. It is still at "proposed standard" and will
likely stay there for a long time.
What Henry, David, and Frank want is some evidence that actually
works (and thus will become the de-facto standard) before publishing
the document as an RFC.
- Philip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
