Subject: An elephant in the room (was IETF processes (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels))

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:41:27 -0700

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> As a metric, once a working group has decided to issue a new Internet Draft,
> it takes almost no time to issue it.  Assuming no format hiccups, it's
> minutes.

The reality is that Internet-Drafts have become an archival series.  While they
expire from consideration, they remain extant and can be easily
referenced and retrieved.

Participants in the IETF commonly want a clear specification, on which there is
general agreement and which is available to all.  Sometimes they get that long
before something is made a standard at any level through the formal process
("The Internet runs on Internet-drafts") by simply adopting some I-D and running
with it.  Certainly lots of the creation of running code for
participants and their
organizations is created at this stage.

There is value in using the standards process to identify which specifications
have achieved that general agreement, but with I-Ds as an archival series,
there is no real way we can drive activity (such as demanding interoperable
implementations) based on access to the standards designations.

I think that any review of our use of standards designations or
how they relate to formal process needs to have some consideration of
the I-D aspects; this is a failure in my own proposal, and it may be important
to consider in any of them.

regards,

Ted

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:45:02 -0700

On 10/28/2010 11:41 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> the I-D aspects

Since you raised this, I'll point to the proposal that was circulated 6 years 
ago. [1]

d/

[1] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00>

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:36:48 +0200

On 28.10.2010 20:45, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Since you raised this, I'll point to the proposal that was circulated 6
> years ago. [1]

Oh my, that's over six months old. We're not supposed to look at that.

Julian

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:01:50 -0700

>> how they relate to formal process needs to have some consideration of
...
> Since you raised this, I'll point to the proposal that was circulated 6 years
...
> [1] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00>

This citation concerns snapshots of working group documents.

I meant to also include:

   <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-02>

Which is an alternate 2-stage standards label proposal from back then...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker