On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Gellens, Randall wrote:
> I don't understand this aspect. If an RFC is deployed, even widely
> deployed, but no new extensions are being done, and no developers are
> clamoring for changes, you want to move it to Historic?
Yes. He misses the point of what we do. We
On 9/4/11 7:23 AM, todd glassey wrote:
There are any number of IETF RFC's which were published and then
accepted in the community under the proviso 'that they would become
IETF standards' which in many instances they do not. Further many of
them are abandoned in an uncompleted mode as standards
On 10/4/11 9:03 AM, "Dean Willis" wrote:
>When I say "developing from" the document, I don't mean "using the
>protocol specified by the document in a static deployment", but
>"referencing the document in new deployments, or actively trying to
>revise the protocol therein".
I don't understand
--On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:03 -0500 Dean Willis
wrote:
>...
> Automatic expiry, as you propose, is easy. But given the fact
> that long-lived PS have essentially become "standards", I'd
> like to make a counter-proposal -- semi-automatic advancement.
>
> We set a 3-year life-cycle for P
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:23 AM, todd glassey wrote:
> To that end I would like to propose the idea that any IETF RFC which is
> submitted to the Standards Track which has sat unchanged in a NON-STANDARD
> status for more than 3 years is struck down and removed formally from the
> Standards Track
On 09/04/11 20:39, Eric Burger wrote:
Why? No one has cared about the annual review from 2026. No one has time to
do the bookkeeping and spend the effort to evaluate stuck documents.
If there is an RFC that is harmful, then one can always ask to have it moved to
Historic.
On Sep 4, 2011, at
I would note that progression to Internet Standard seems to have more to
do with availability of interested folks to do the work and little to with
acceptance of the protocol. HTTP has been hanging at DS for many years and
that hasn't stopped its wide acceptance. Yes, there is now a WG working
t
I think we all know the market generally speaks for himself on whats
used or not used, official stamping of IETF approval or not, vendor
interest or not. But I also believe it is another reason why there
are other issues, such like the RFC2119bis debates. Today, we have
more integrated produc
Why? No one has cared about the annual review from 2026. No one has time to
do the bookkeeping and spend the effort to evaluate stuck documents.
If there is an RFC that is harmful, then one can always ask to have it moved to
Historic.
On Sep 4, 2011, at 10:23 AM, todd glassey wrote:
> There
There are any number of IETF RFC's which were published and then
accepted in the community under the proviso 'that they would become IETF
standards' which in many instances they do not. Further many of them are
abandoned in an uncompleted mode as standards efforts.
To that end I would like to
10 matches
Mail list logo
