On 1 nov. 2013, at 01:00, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
"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.
Note that the text says that they are ready for market based product
development and does not proscribe a test, in fact there is also no IPR test
for proposed standards. The ‘IPR test’ what happens after market deployment:
did market players have no problem getting (F)RAND licenses, hence it is an
important, albeit somewhat implicit, criterium in going from Proposed to
Internet Standard.
Frankly, if we develop standard track document that, in general, are not ready
to be put in products hen it is going to be very very difficult to explain the
relevance of the IETF. Not only to the policy people but also to the people who
pay us to develop standards.
And off-course it is not black and white, hence the ‘in general’ in the
sentence above. In the cases where we collectively think that we are not quite
there there is the escape route that we’ve put in section 4.
—Olaf
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail