--On Saturday, January 08, 2011 07:37 -0800 Lixia Zhang
<lixia(_at_)cs(_dot_)ucla(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out,
without consultation to any of its original authors, and given
the rough consensus on ietf mailing list discussion is to keep
NETBLT RFC as is (experimental).
Lixia,
I'm not sure there is any rush. I'm also not sure that the
effort that is going into this could not be better spent in
other ways. I'm also not sure about the opposite of either -- I
actually don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
However, it seems to me that...
(i) It has been a very long time since we published
specifications that might now be considered Experimental with
disclaimers that said, more or less, "don't even think about
implementing this without a discussion with, and maybe
permission from, the author". If a spec is published as
Experimental, then people are assumed to be free, modulo any IPR
issues, to implement and test it.
(ii) To the extent to which it is worthwhile publishing
Experimental specifications at all, it is worthwhile (at least
if anyone is willing to do that work) to publish experimental
results, reports on implementations, and other things from which
the community might learn. When I looked at White's original
spec a week or two ago, it appeared to be, in most respects,
just an implementation and deployment report that pointed to a
modified version of NETBLT that was then in important use. As
of that time, White didn't know whether it was still in use or
not. I certainly don't know.
(iii) Despite (i), I think there may be a legitimate complaint
(at least about bad judgment) if those who created and specified
a variant of the original spec for a particular set of
applications did not consult the original authors while doing
so. But that complaint is probably irrelevant at this late
date and, in any event, is about the behavior of various folks
whose identities I can't discern from the documentation I've
seen and not about Mykyta's behavior or even that of John While.
(iv) If you have concluded, based on your own work, what you
understand of the implications of the work While summarized, or
for other reasons what people should not be encouraged to
implement and experiment with NETBLT, then it seems to me
entirely reasonable to publish White's document and whatever
discussion you think it appropriate to provide (either as part
of that document or separately), and to do so as immediately
Historic, taking the original spec with it.
Again, I think it is an open question whether any of this is
worth the effort. I could say the same thing for an extended
discussion of the subject on the IETF list. But it seems clear
to me that, if the effort is going to be invested, it would be
more worthwhile to spend it documenting the status, history, and
strengths and weaknesses of the idea in a permanent form than in
having an extended conversation about procedures, modes of
consultation, etc.
Just my opinion as usual.
best regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf