That depends on where the proposal is in the stack. Cruft in the lower layers is decidedly bad. Cruft in the application layers is inevitable and is best left to the market to sort out.
At this point with HTTP not recognized as an Internet Standard, I don't think we need to worry too much about the bar having been set too low. This is a process that is going to be run by humans, not machines. I don't think we need to worry too much about them doing stupid things because that is what the process appears to require. On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > > On 10/27/2010 8:53 AM, > ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com<ned%2bi...@mauve.mrochek.com>wrote: > >> three level is one level too many. Simplifying things and >> eliminating process clutter is helpful in and of itself. >> > > > By my reading of the proposal, this means that any spec with a couple of > interoperable implementations can become a (full) Internet Standard. > > This means that the assignment of that final status has nothing to do with > real-world deployment and use, or even inclusion in products. > > In other words, it has nothing to do with demonstrated utility. > > Is that really what the IETF community wants? > > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
