At 12:10 PM +0300 6/15/07, <Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Why not? As long as the reader of the IANA registry can ascertain
which codepoint owner is at a particular level, how would that affect
interop?
Being able to ascertain what the level is isn't enough; you also
need to know (and more importantly, care) about the differences
in the levels :-)
I'd say there are lot of implementors who don't really care that
much for the distinctions between an individual Internet-Draft,
a WG draft, an Experimental RFC, or Proposed Standard RFC.
Fully agree. Where we disagree is whether or not the IETF should do
something about that more than just saying what our levels are and
what they mean. I believe that needs to be sufficient, and our
energies are best spent on our standards efforts.
But if only the latter two (or three) would have proper numbers
in them (instead of TBD-BY-IANA), that would send a clear message
that "this not ready yet"... (but of course, this doesn't always
work; if there's strong enough pressure to implement, people
will "invent" some numbers there)
Enforcement of our standards process by hiding things that are
outside of the process seems both dishonest to, and disrespectful of,
typical developers. That does not lead them to the type of
interoperability we want.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf