Hi,

I've around the IETF for quite a while, and I think it is important to
understand the goals of the IETF.

RFC2026 (The Internet Standards Process) says:
"These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting
      generally-accepted practices.  Thus, a candidate specification
      must be implemented and tested for correct operation and
      interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in
      increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as
      an Internet Standard."

Are these too-precise parts generally-accepted practices?
Are they implemented by more then one independent implementation?

The goal is to reach agreement on a standard way to do things. If they
describe the way one implementation has done it, then I question whether
it belongs in the document at all. If they document multiple existing
practices that are incompatible, then I question whether it belongs in
the document at all.

The members of this WG should reach agreement on the specification of a
standardized approach, and be willing to implement and test that
specification. Those aspects of the technology for which the members of
this WG are unwilling to agree on a standard approach, and modify their
implementations as needed to comply with that standard approach, should
be removed from the document.

If the behaviors described are not agreed upon by this WG to become the
standard approach, then let's not document them in a standards-track
RFC.

dbh


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Issue 13: precise or lax
>
> Hi WG,
>
> I am tracking this at:
>
> http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/protocol/issue13.html
>
> during the Seoul meeting, it was suggested that the too-pricese part
> should be moved into a non-normative appendix. I like this idea, as it
> serves all needs best. I am now about to move text. I would appreciate
> suggestions on what should be moved to the non-normative part.
>
> Rainer
>
>
>
>


Reply via email to