Hi Dave,
At 11:06 31-10-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
Note that the motivation for Olaf's draft is the misunderstanding by
others of the nature and worth of Proposed Standards documents. We
do not have complaints about the actual /quality/ of the
specifications, but of the language describing their formal status.
Yes.
In effect, such folk are distracted by some of the words in RFC
2026. We can't fix their style of reading or limitations in how they
integrate information and also we cannot ignore such folk.
The IAB sent a comment about ICT standardization to a directorate of
the European Commission in 2009. My interpretation of the intent is
that it was so that the IETF is recognized more broadly among
standardization organizations. The comment stated that the IETF and
IAB exert no control over the nature or identity of participants in IETF
activities. Some parts of the comment was about standards
making. Most of the comments are usually about the process instead
of the quality of the specifications. If IETF ignores such folks
(see above) it can affect where the RFCs can be used.
In Section 2:
"Hence IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they
are ready for the usual market-based product development and
deployment efforts into the Internet."
I am not comfortable with having that text in BCP 9. The argument up
to now has been running code and that that is the line which has been
used for test of quality. A better test of quality might be someone
who has not followed the working group and who can implement the
specification. There is also the IPR test. That is also one of the
issues mentioned by the audience which the document targets.
Regards,
-sm