On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > 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.
Would the first step be to try and get some statistics, to see how many of those ~ 200 standards fall into class 1-6 ? Regards Marshall > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > 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
