At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit, such
as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the work cannot
gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants
moving to Historic.
Fully disagree. If there is "some implementation but not enough" it
should remain "proposed". Otherwise, vendors will hesitate to
implement protocols that might eventually make them look silly ("why
does the box include the FrobzBaz protocol when everyone knows that
it is Historic?").
This leads to two designations: Proposed and Full. An implementer
looking at a Proposed standard would assess how long it has been out
and which other implementers have put it in competing products to
assess whether they want to put it in theirs. Things labelled Full
standard would probably be put in by default.
Vendors really do care about this. They don't want to look bad for
including the "wrong" features, and they don't want to look bad for
not including popular ones. I regularly get calls from VPNC members
asking about whether or not they should implement various standards,
both in the positive sense ("is it worth paying an OEM to include
this?") and in the negative sense ("will we look silly if we include
this, even though it is in the standard?").
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf