I think we all know the market generally speaks for himself on whats
used or not used, official stamping of IETF approval or not, vendor
interest or not. But I also believe it is another reason why there
are other issues, such like the RFC2119bis debates. Today, we have
more integrated products and vendors and organizations who required a
higher dependency and usage of integrated framework of optional parts.
Its always been the case, but have more of this and if there one major
concern, is the growing mindset to accept a technical economy of scale
model - as long as the fewer mainstreams represent a greater share of
the usage (i.e. most of the email activity), then this is consider
better for the greater goal. One can use the concepts of Pareto
Optimality [1] to understand this better.
A Pareto optimal outcome is one such that no-one could be
made better off without making someone else worse off.
Who can say if your Burn Date suggestion will help or not, but it
doesn't sound prudent for one to stop or remove a technology that has
already been implemented as a "proposed standard." Geez, I think
there are a number of draft I-Ds that have become "pseudo standards"
and will never be considered or pass the IETF Internet Standard test.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
todd glassey wrote:
There are any number of IETF RFC's which were published and then
accepted in the community under the proviso 'that they would become IETF
standards' which in many instances they do not. Further many of them are
abandoned in an uncompleted mode as standards efforts.
To that end I would like to propose the idea that any IETF RFC which is
submitted to the Standards Track which has sat unchanged in a
NON-STANDARD status for more than 3 years is struck down and removed
formally from the Standards Track because of failure to perform on the
continued commitment to evolve those standards.
Why this is necessary is that the IETF has become a tool of companies
which are trying to get specific IETF approval for their wares and
protocols - whether they are open in form or not. The IETF entered into
a contract with these people to establish their standard and published
those documents on the standards track so that they would be completed.
Since they have not been completed as IETF Standards the Project
Managers for those submissions have formally breached their contract to
complete that process with both their WG members who vetted those works
as well as the rest of the IETF's relying parties.
As such it is reasonable to put a BURN DATE on any Standards Track
effort which has stalled or stopped dead in its tracks for years.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf