Please note that I didn¹t make a proposal. I can live quite well with a
misalignment of IETF terminology and reality as perceived outside the IETF.
So can the industry, I think. What I was commenting on is that it does not
make sense to me to re-iterate the mantra of ³Experimental RFCs not being
standards², when there is ample evidence that a large percentage of the
outside world views this differently.
It seems to take only the intervention one of the (security / congestion
control / anti-patent / ...) communities of the IETF to move a document
intended for standard¹s track to the, arguably, second-class RFC status
known as ³Experimental². Again, that¹s not a problem for me, for the reason
stated above.
Stephan
On 3/9/09 9:38 PM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
wrote:
When British Leyland shut down the assembly line for the Triumph TR7 they
found a note that said, 'Your proposal to prime and paint the TR7 bodyshells
before moving them a hundred miles in open rail cars to the assembly plant has
been made before. If only stopping rust was so simple'.
The fact that a proposal has been made before and ignored does not diminish
its value.
How frequently does a sensible proposal have to be made to receive a
susbstantive response?
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Steven M. Bellovin
Sent: Mon 3/9/2009 6:40 PM
To: Stephan Wenger
Cc: SM; rms(_at_)gnu(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:35:31 -0700
Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IETF might view it this way. Large parts of the
(standardization) world does not. One example in my field of work is
FLUTE, and the surrounding infrastructure of frameworks and FEC
codes. To the best of my recollection, these specifications were
originally issued as Experimental RFCs, for reasons of congestion
control worries. (They are also heavily encumbered, but that was not
really an issue according to my recollection.) The Experimental
status did not stop 3GPP and other SDOs to normatively reference
them, and treat them just like any other IETF RFC. Note that 3GPP
could NOT do that with a journal publication... I could name more
examples, both when it comes to referencing SDOs and referenced RFC
types (including normative references to at least Historic, Obsolete,
Informational).
This is, I think, the second- or third-most-common topic on the IETF
list: should we rename the document series to prevent that... (#1 is
non-ASCII formats for RFCs; #2 -- by volume of postings, rather than
frequency of discussion -- might be IPR.)
Other than giving up the RFC label for Experimental documents, it's
hard to see what the IETF can do.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf