At 07:51 AM 11/18/2010, RJ Atkinson wrote:
IESG Folks,
The IETF already has taken MUCH MUCH too long handling this document.
Each time this I-D gets revised, new and different issues are raised.
While I am generally OK with the way IETF processes work,
this document is an exception.
Excessive nit-picking is going on with this document, especially
since it is already globally deployed and clearly works well.
Further, there are multiple interoperable implementations already
deployed, which is an existence proof that the current I-D is
sufficient. This I-D is quite different from most documents heading
to Proposed Standard, because for most I-Ds interoperability hasn't been
shown and operational utility in the deployed world hasn't been shown.
Perfection is NOT what IETF processes require for a Proposed Standard
RFC. Please stop seeking or asking for perfection from this I-D.
Please just publish the document as an RFC **RIGHT NOW**
and AS-IS.
Even if IESG folks really think more document editing is needed,
then still publish it RIGHT NOW and AS-IS. If folks really want
to see document clarifications, that can be done LATER when the
document advances along the IETF standards-track.
----
What Ran said. In spades.
This document seems to be of reasonable quality, in a niche that probably
won't get working group attention written by authors that seem to have a
reasonable amount of knowledge in this space who want to place a set of ideas
into the IETF space. Proposed standards are supposed to be used to do
preliminary evaluations of how to do things - they shouldn't be held up simply
because they don't address the universe.
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf