+1
you shouldn' need to be an IETF insider to actually understand IETF standards.
John
Sent from my Nokia N900.
----- Original message -----
Not THIS again. Let's look at a few of the standards that are commonly
used today:
HTTP: DS
SNTP: PS
SIP: PS
IPv6 Addressing Architecture: DS
SMTP: DS & Full standard
MPLS-VPNs: PS
BGPv4: DS
MIME: DS
XMPP: PS (although it seems the real work goes on elsewhere)
OSPF: Full standard
RIPv2: full standard
BFD: not to be found
VRRP: DS
Radius: DS
DNS base: full standard
DNS components: varying
SNMPv3: full (but long before anyone actually used it)
And so you will forgive people who seem confused by our quaint notion
that there are flavors of standards. We don't do a good job of
describing maturity with our standards levels. Perhaps we do a good job
of using the standards levels to make a recommendation. How much SNMPv1
and v2 is out there still? Apparently not many people are listening to
that recommendation.
Does standard matter at all any more? I think so. A good number of the
base protocols that are run on the computer I type this from are
actually IETF standards. Yeah (except for software and device
management. We blew, and continue to blow that one).
So let's get real. John's draft was the right thing to do for NEWTRK.
But do we really have the stomach for it? Last time out we did not.
Eliot
ps: see you all in Orange County, where I'm sure this endless debate
will continue.
On 11/11/09 5:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
From the perspective of the world outside the IETF, this is already
the case. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC...
I don't think this is a truth universally acknowledged.
I have heard the IETF disparaged a number of times on account of
"hardly having any standards". For example, a full Standard is equated
by some people with an ITU-T Recommendation with the implication that
a DS and PS are significantly inferior to a Recommendation.
Whatever we might think of the value of this statement and the motives
of the people who make it, it is clear that the names of the different
levels of RFC are perceived outside the IETF.
Over dinner this evening we wondered whether something as simple as
looking again at the names of the stages in the three phase RFC
process might serve to address both the perceptions and the
motivations for progression.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf