Few RFCs are standards track. IETF transport focuses on maintaining its existing standards; that's my point. It's not really set up for experimental work not directly related to those standards.
Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: Joe Touch [[email protected]] Sent: 06 July 2013 19:33 To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Draft agenda for the IETF-87 TSV Area meeting uploaded And where in your sequence did a standard appear? Outside a wg? On Jul 6, 2013, at 2:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, that's the wrong sequence, too. IANA can allocate numbers at draft > stage long before RFC - as it did for Saratoga http://saratoga.sf.net > > But even your sequence says 'tell the IETF', not 'participate in an IETF WG > with all the drones'. > > Since QUIC is already deployed worldwide, I am reminded of King Canute. > > Lloyd Wood > http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ > > > ________________________________________ > From: Joe Touch [[email protected]] > Sent: 06 July 2013 08:03 > To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Draft agenda for the IETF-87 TSV Area meeting uploaded > > On Jul 6, 2013, at 12:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> First deploy, then tell the IETF about it, and let the IETF put the >> documentation into >> the preferred 1970s ASCII format. > > Unless drone revoked RFC 2780, that's the wrong sequence. First develop and > test, then tell the IETF in a standards- track RFC, then get that RFC > approved, then get a transport number, then deploy. > > I don't mind general info about stuff in the area meetings, but feedback > requires participation, which requires a draft. And deployment of transports > requires approved standards to get assigned numbers. > > Joe
