ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: If you found today's plenary debate on standards track tedious...

2009-11-11 20:33:06
Adrian,

I think both statements are true.

I've seen operators putting almost any RFC in RFPs, (actually done
it myself) STD, DS, PS, Informational, Experimental, Historic and
April 1st. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC!

On the other hand talking to folks active in other SDOs you very
often hear the "no standards" argument.

Renaming without changing definitions should part of the job.

/Loa



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

--


Loa Andersson                         email: 
loa(_dot_)andersson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                             +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>