+1 you shouldn' need to be an IETF insider to actually understand IETF standards.
John Sent from my Nokia N900. ----- Original message ----- > Not THIS again. Let's look at a few of the standards that are commonly > used today: > > HTTP: DS > SNTP: PS > SIP: PS > IPv6 Addressing Architecture: DS > SMTP: DS & Full standard > MPLS-VPNs: PS > BGPv4: DS > MIME: DS > XMPP: PS (although it seems the real work goes on elsewhere) > OSPF: Full standard > RIPv2: full standard > BFD: not to be found > VRRP: DS > Radius: DS > DNS base: full standard > DNS components: varying > SNMPv3: full (but long before anyone actually used it) > > And so you will forgive people who seem confused by our quaint notion > that there are flavors of standards. We don't do a good job of > describing maturity with our standards levels. Perhaps we do a good job > of using the standards levels to make a recommendation. How much SNMPv1 > and v2 is out there still? Apparently not many people are listening to > that recommendation. > > Does standard matter at all any more? I think so. A good number of the > base protocols that are run on the computer I type this from are > actually IETF standards. Yeah (except for software and device > management. We blew, and continue to blow that one). > > So let's get real. John's draft was the right thing to do for NEWTRK. > But do we really have the stomach for it? Last time out we did not. > > Eliot > ps: see you all in Orange County, where I'm sure this endless debate > will continue. > > On 11/11/09 5:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > From the perspective of the world outside the IETF, this is already > > > the case. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC... > > > > I don't think this is a truth universally acknowledged. > > > > I have heard the IETF disparaged a number of times on account of > > "hardly having any standards". For example, a full Standard is equated > > by some people with an ITU-T Recommendation with the implication that > > a DS and PS are significantly inferior to a Recommendation. > > > > Whatever we might think of the value of this statement and the motives > > of the people who make it, it is clear that the names of the different > > levels of RFC are perceived outside the IETF. > > > > Over dinner this evening we wondered whether something as simple as > > looking again at the names of the stages in the three phase RFC > > process might serve to address both the perceptions and the > > motivations for progression. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
