On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
There are many RFCs that have reached draft standard status that have never
been deployed.
I don't think this is true; in this or any other WG. Your claim runs
counter to the requirements for Draft Standard status. Do you have an
example RFC demonstrating this?
There are many protocols that have never progressed beyond
experimental or informational that are real defacto standards.
This has certainly happened, but I think usually this is due to sloppiness
by those WG chairs to take care of the business of the working group and
move drafts along. Though this might be too harsh a criticism in some
cases, such as where the Experimental RFC lost consensus, but use/interest
was picked up later.
It was abundantly clear than many in the group were working from a mental
model that went something like obtain IETF standards status, get deployed.
This is in practice only the way forward after a protocol is reasonably
mature.
It is hard to say what the mental model of many participating in the WG
was. However, it is not the case that to "obtain IETF standards status,
then get deployed" is "in practice only the way forward after a protocol
is reasonably mature". The point of the RFC process is to define clearly
a protocol; test, analyze, and fix flaws; and move forward based on
consensus that something useful is being achieved. It is not a rubber
stamp on "reasonably mature protocols".
Not to restart the subject Eric Raymond and other discussed on the main
IETF list over the last couple weeks, but the RFC process worked correctly
in the MARID WG. The proposed protocols were severely flawed, and
consensus could not be reached, so nothing useful could be accomplished.
Some people are bitter about that result, and suggest that the IETF is
therefore going to be "left in the dustbin". That isn't the first time
that claim has been leveled, nor will it be the last. The SPF idea is not
the last "ultimate spam solution", that will be found to have not quite
considered everything, or even considered enough to be more useful than
harmful. It was a good try, and the authors should be credited. However,
reasonable people recognize when it's time to go back to the drawing
board. I think the SPF authors and propoenents need to get to work again
instead of complaining about the lack of ratification of their flawed
proposals.
I suggested previously that the authors take a hard, long look at
information theory, and whether the spam problem can be solved
technically, and in particular, to look at what sort of features of a spam
filter are possible and what sort of limits information theory imposes on
solutions. I've suggested also that they have to remember that the
spammer has all the knowledge and privileges that they have. And I also
suggest that instead of spam, they consider controlling an information
flow in general. Lets call it 'Vienna Sausage', which is simply unwanted,
ignoring the reasons for which it is unwanted.
There is a high probability that the blogosphere will converge on
whatever ATOM decides, but the IETF could not have created the blogosphere
by simply ratifying an RFC.
The "blogosphere"? Is that like the punditariat?
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000