Hi, Yoav,
Recognizing that we all work in different parts of the IETF, so our
experiences reflect that ...
RFCs have one big advantage over all kinds of "blessed" internet drafts.
The process of publishing an RFC gets the IANA allocations. Every
implementation you make based on a draft will
On Nov 3, 2010, at 1:42 PM, t.petch wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should step back a little further, and refuse to charter work that
> will become an RFC unless there are two or more independent organisations that
> commit to producing code. There is nothing like interoperability for
> demonstrating th
- Original Message -
From: "Yoav Nir"
To:
Cc: "t.petch" ;
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:08 PM
Strange. I look at the same facts, and reach the opposite conclusions.
The fact that there were many implementations based on drafts of standards shows
that industry (not just us, but oth
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> One way -- the one you seem to be (quite reasonably) worried about --
> is that you get a bunch of non-interoperating, half-baked things that
> are later rendered broken by updates to the specification.
No, I'm more worried about ending up with a set of half a dozen
spe
Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> My conclusion is that we can't just ignore industry and keep polishing
> away, but that we have to do things in a timely manner. One thing
> we've learned from the TLS renegotiation thing was that it is possible
> to get a document from concept to RFC in 3 months. Yes, you ne
Strange. I look at the same facts, and reach the opposite conclusions.
The fact that there were many implementations based on drafts of standards
shows that industry (not just us, but others as well) does not wait for SDOs to
be "quite done". They are going to implement something even we label
You could call me a blue-eyed optimist, but I have brown eyes ...
What other motivation could there be to publishing documents earlier
than vendors implementing and shipping it earlier? And if they do
that, there is hardly any room for any substantial or backwards-
incompatible changes. And th
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:09:53PM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
> Would the world be better off if the IETF had more variants of
> IP-Protocols (IPv7, IPv8, IPv9 besides IPv4 and IPv6)? Or if
> we had SNMP v4+v5+v6 in addition to v3 (and historic v2)?
> Or if we had HTTP v1.2 + v1.3 + v1.4 in addition
t.petch wrote:
>
> From: "Andrew Sullivan"
> >
> > Supppse we actually have the following problems:
> >
> > 1. People think that it's too hard to get to PS. (Never mind the
> > competing anecdotes. Let's just suppose this is true.)
> >
> > 2. People think that PS actually ought to
Original Message -
From: "Andrew Sullivan"
To:
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:39 PM
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20:23PM -0700, SM wrote:
> > It would be difficult to get buy-in if the document is not published as a
> > RFC.
>
> Supppse we actually have the following problems:
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
