On 11/23/2010 13:17, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:55 PM -0800 11/23/10, Doug Barton wrote:
In the theoretical perfect world the reason for producing a spec is so that
vendors can _create_ interoperable versions of the service. That motivation
doesn't apply here, so one wonders what the time pressure is.
That is "a" reason, not "the" reason. Another is so that vendors can assure
interoperability of their systems after they are deployed. Saying "you have to figure out how to
interoperate with all other implementations" does not lead to that interoperability. A stable RFC can
help greatly, as has been shown repeatedly in the IETF.
That's a motivation for creating the draft, yes. It's not a motivation
for publishing the RFC before it's ready.
Please understand, I'm not saying "don't publish," I'm not even saying
"fix _all_ the problems." I'm saying, "Fix the obvious, glaring protocol
error that has potential to do more damage down the road, and while
you're at it here are some other minor suggestions to improve the
quality of the document if you choose to accept them. THEN publish the RFC."
And now I've repeated myself sufficiently so I will spare the list
members any more responses to ad absurdum replies.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf