"John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
John> --On Tuesday, 06 September, 2005 15:14 -0400 Sam Hartman
John> <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
>> John, what does it mean to put a registry document on the
>> standards track? In particular, how do you get multiple
>> implementations of a registry?
John> One is reminded of the story of Eeyore's birthday party.
John> Registering things --putting them into a registry so that
John> they can be retrieved and examined using whatever key was
John> used to put them there-- is always easy and, as you point
John> out, untestable. But it is also almost never the point: the
John> point is whether the right information is being placed in
John> the registry to support the relevant applications and
John> whether those applications can use the information in a way
John> that promotes interoperability.
John> With regard to that driving issue, it is certainly possible
John> to have multiple implementations of matching rules. It is
John> certainly possible to examine, in practice, different uses
John> of the tagging system to determine whether its mechanisms
John> are sufficient and, if sufficient, whether they meet some
John> "minimum necessary" criteria or represent serious overkill
John> and/or redundancy.
It is possible to do many things. I was hoping that I could get you
to make a concrete proposal for how you see this document advancing if
we put it on the standards track. Personally I think your comments
are valuable even if you don't make such a proposal,but I think they
would be more valuable if you or someone holding the same position
would make it very clear what it would mean for this document to be on
the standards track. My question is not motivated by a lack of
imagination about what that could mean but rather all too many options
I can think of.
Here are some questions it seems like the IETF community would need to answer
in order to implement your proposed categorization:
1) What happens to the existing registry with these documents on the
standards track but not BCPs?
2) How do we advance these documents on the standards track?
In addition, it might be advisable for the IETF community to consider
the question of what happens if we find this is not the right
approach; that question is not required to implement your proposed
reclassification but it seems advisable to consider.
Let me throw something out to answer the questions I posed. We could
keep the existing 3066 registry as the BCP registry and create a new
registry for these documents. We could advance these documents when
any single using protocol advances. Presumably that would mean that
these documents could not advance until some protocol that normatively
references them advances; that's probably OK. Clearly these are not
the only answers to the questions I posed--I'm not even sure if they
are good answers. They are presented only to illustrate that it is
possible to answer the questions without huge effort. That in turn
suggests to me at least that I'm not establishing an unreasonable
requirement by asking the questions be answered.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf