Hi Cullen, folks,
It seems to me ...
There have been a number of cases where things are not developed
within the IETF
but are "out there".
Whether or not folk LIKE those schemes/the companies that promulgate
them/the author(s)
/the document style/the weather is not really important.
Having an Informational RFC to describe these protocols or file
formats is useful.
If nothing else, it tells you what the heck is going on down the wire.
IF the IESG wants to tag on a comment that the described protocol/
format is broken
or conflicts with a more sensible IETF-anointed approach, it can and
does.
I support this as an Informational document. I would like this
description out now.
Burying it in a WG to try (and fail) to turn this into an IETF
standards-track
document is not helpful. I fear that someone will go postal if we do
Zeroconf again.
There has been Sooooo much history that it is simply not worth
repeating the pain.
(I seem to recall discussions on this starting out @IETF-41 in LA,
since which time it's in very wide use "out there" :).
Please can we ship this as an Informational, and soon?
all the best,
Lawrence
On 18 Nov 2009, at 15:41, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards
track vs informational?
Thanks, Cullen
_______________________________________________
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