On 9/4/11 7:23 AM, 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
Todd,
I do not hold that view. It should not require careers be dedicated in
the advancement of specifications. As in programming, many of these
specifications should become components supporting more complex
protocols. While the current publications tools help tremendously in
allowing interested parties determine the current state of a
specification, I have not found standard's track informative.
It seems there should be an effort to better objectify specifications,
in other words, allow them to be deconstructed into separate elements.
Above the deconstruction, allow higher level organizations to offer a
breakdown of options, relative use, current and best practices. This
high level organization should not include any normative language, other
than in arranging existing specifications. It would be with this higher
level arrangement where status ranking makes more sense.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf