At 16:20 30-05-2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
So, here is my a proposed alternative:
1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make that
happen, and how to deal with the increased number of RFCs.
The annual review provides an alternative to deal with the increased
number of (non-historic) RFCs. A "no substantive objection" clause
might enable the removal of "drive-by" RFCs.
The IETF can then focus on non-historic RFCs, i.e. specifications
that are relevant to current discussions. Or else, there can be an
automatic reclassification to Historic if an implementation report
has not been produced within a year of the publication date.
What's been missing during the discussion of this draft is a
practical way to deal with known issues.
2.2(b)(iii) - I would prefer that this be amended to "All unused
'MUST' requirements will be changed to 'SHOULD' requirements." If
deployment is interoperable and a feature is unused, it means that
the feature was not actually REQUIRED for interoperability. I object
to this as it stands.
That's one way to deal with RFC 2119 creep. I'll go one step
further. If there is a significant number of implementations that do
not implement a SHOULD, the feature can be removed. The resulting
specification might be easier to implement once the amount of
requirements are reduced.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf