At 16:01 06-09-2011, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I don't believe the IESG raised the bar, I think the community
raised it in a series of IETF Last Calls. And I think this is good -
if this document were lowing the PS bar from what it is today, I'd
be strongly objecting to it. The problem in my mind is getting work
done quickly, not figuring out how to lower the quality of our work.
draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-00 was published in 2001 and
version 14 in February 2011. There is an IPR disclosure. If the
proposal were to advance along the Standards Track, the following
might be applicable:
"If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required for
implementation, the separate implementations must also have resulted
from separate exercise of the licensing process."
The draft went through several Last Calls. If I recall correctly,
there were some objections raised during the Last Call. I doubt
whether the community is aware of what changes were agreed upon given
that this is an individual submission which finally got processed
after four months.
This is a draft which is going to be evaluated shortly. It got the
"Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2818"
I could nit-pick and say that the write-up mentioned that and the RFC
is listed in the Downref registry. Anyway, could someone please
explain to me what is the rationale for flagging downrefs if the it's
a one-step process in practice?
Is it as Sam Hartman said, a nice game of "publish that doc" and
people have to get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF rules
errata and the IETF player's magazine articles with rules commentary
and figure out what is going on?
draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76 was submitted in May 2010. There
were at least two implementations. Would it qualify for Proposed Standard?
draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-07 is the output of a working
group. One of the DISCUSSes mention that:
"This draft seems to say that BCP 61 does not apply to RTP. BCP 61
describes the "Danvers Doctrine", which says that the IETF should
standardize on the use of the best security available, regardless of
It's been over a year since the above point has been raised. The
draft has not been published yet.
draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 has five DISCUSSes, one of which says:
"The mboned charter says:
This is not meant to be a protocol development Working Group.
Is this not a protocol? In which other WGs has it been reviewed?"
I don't know who raised the bar. It doesn't really matter unless
people confuse finger pointing with problem solving. The
requirements frustrate implementers, which is understandable, when
there is no relation between quality and known technical defects.
Ietf mailing list