Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Oct 30 10:18:08 2007, Eliot Lear wrote:
What benefit does it bring to anyone to advance a standard to DS? AND
it's a whole lot of work.
But it does do some good to review past specifications and note if
they're still ok, it does do some good to note that specifications are
solid, and it does do some good to say they're widely deployed. Sadly,
this information does not get captured anywhere.
Not to mention the value of incorporating the results of implementation
and deployment experience (though perhaps that's part of what you call
reviewing past specifications).
I suppose that incorporating experience, reviewing the specification,
and the like can be done by cycling at PS forever, so it's not clear
whether DS and IS really matter. However, it may be that those good
things happen only by advancing a technology to DS. If so, then perhaps
it's OK that doing so is "a whole lot of work" as Eliot says. After all,
advancing an I-D to RFC is a whole lot of work, too, but we generally
consider that process to be beneficial. Maybe we need to more clearly
enunciate the benefits of advancing a technology to DS?
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Ietf mailing list
|<Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread>
- 2026, draft, full, etc., Eliot Lear
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Dave Cridland
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., James M. Polk
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Ned Freed
- RE: 2026, draft, full, etc., Hallam-Baker, Phillip
|Previous by Date:
||Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil, peter_blatherwick
|Next by Date:
||Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00, James M. Polk
|Previous by Thread:
||RE: 2026, draft, full, etc., michael.dillon
|Next by Thread:
||Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., James M. Polk