Hi Chris,
How does the IETF feel about having "multiple standards" of the same
thing, in other words, redundancy?
I don't think we generally want that, and I don't think we want "bad"
ideas becoming standards because it becomes harder and costly to undue.
However, we do need to document them too as well to allow people to
try them out. So if the authors don't wish to make it, EXPERIMENTAL,
BCP or INFORMATIONAL, a better option is to further it as a Proposed
Method rather than get bounce around, wasting so much time as a
Proposed Standard where Rough Consensus decisions is more problematic
than ever before. Keep in mind there is also the "politics" part of
it too of getting things pushed and supported. Once a proposed
standard starts, you might as well "forget" about other possible
solutions. They might not be allowed. However, I am seen them also
used to weaken and even destroy PS efforts - raises doubt, etc, which
is good when it shouldn't had been a PS in the first place.
A PM would be easier I feel to pursue with less "politics," IMO. A
lesser peer review process. Experimental and informational are too
weak. If we took "Best" out of BCP, then perhaps a CP would be closer
to a PM or Internet Method (IM). It just isn't the only, close-ended
standard.
Perhaps it should be made clearer that a BCP or Proposed Standard is
not absolute in the IETF as far as solutions are concern. The
suggestion is to provide a way to document strong multiple solutions
which may not necessary the "standard" or "best" solution.
Personally, I would write more documents, get involved more with PM
documents. PS are too hard. Too stressful and time consuming and the
others, like BCP is just the wrong category. Maybe take away the B
from CP and we got it. :)
Thanks for your feedback.
--
HLS
On 1/29/2014 5:29 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I'm not sure more categories is what we want.
I have observed all of the following (not at the same time, though some were)
from people not familiar with the IETF and RFCs, although invested in or using
RFCs:
- Assuming that all RFCs are standards.
- Assuming that only Standards matter, that Proposed Standards and Draft
standards aren't important.
- Assuming that Draft Standard is a category below Proposed Standard.
- Recognising that there are standards and not-standards, but not
distinguishing in any way between Standard, Draft Standard and Proposed
Standard (calling all of them Standards).
- Just plain confused.
(And the concept of BCP is probably completely unknown to anyone thinking any
of the above.)
Another category isn't going to help here.