On 10/26/2010 9:08 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
while we are the topic of problems
No Scott the problem is that the IETF is not a lobbyist organization and
your blocking the standardization of anything based on whether the
Internet "needs it or not" makes your IETF the controller of what gets
routed and what not, it also creates trememdous liability and opens all
of the parties here to litigation based therein one would think...
Russ basically proposes too change the maturity warning label on IETF
standard track RFCs -- remove baby before folding carriage -- this
hardly seems like our biggest problems
The IETF publishes a lot of standards track RFCs each year. Mostly
these are PS (186 in 2009), some DS (3 in 2009), and some S (6 in 2009).
SOME of these technologies are just what the community needs and just
when the community needs them. But too many are
1/ too late for the market - implementations based on IDs
deployed or other technologies adopted
2/ unneeded by the market - does not meet a need that people
think they have
3/ broken - flawed in some way that prevents actual deployment
4/ too complex - hard and costly to correctly implement
5/ unmanageable - cannot be run by humans
Seems to me that the issue of how the IETF can be better at producing
just what the community needs just when the community needs it is more
important than maturity warning labels.
Ietf mailing list
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ietf mailing list