while we are the topic of problems Russ basically proposes too change the maturity warning label on IETF standard track RFCs -- remove baby before folding carriage -- this hardly seems like our biggest problem
The IETF publishes a lot of standards track RFCs each year. Mostly these are PS (186 in 2009), some DS (3 in 2009), and some S (6 in 2009). SOME of these technologies are just what the community needs and just when the community needs them. But too many are 1/ too late for the market - implementations based on IDs deployed or other technologies adopted 2/ unneeded by the market - does not meet a need that people think they have 3/ broken - flawed in some way that prevents actual deployment 4/ too complex - hard and costly to correctly implement 5/ unmanageable - cannot be run by humans Seems to me that the issue of how the IETF can be better at producing just what the community needs just when the community needs it is more important than maturity warning labels. Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf