I wanted to address a point that's been brought up a number of times in this thread -- the contention "if we don't go standards track, people aren't going to be motivated to deploy this." There is an opposite argument to be made in this line of logic -- "if we do go standards track, there will no work done on any alternate solution -- because there is a standard in place -- and if the standard ends up being undeployable (which is, after 15+ years of work, still true), then we will do nothing."
Overall, I find it difficult to assess the risk in either direction, so I think these two tend to equal one another out. OTOH, if we are going to go standards track, it needs to be with the specifically called out understanding that these drafts are not the final answer -- that the IETF doesn't consider this the ultimate solution for the problem at hand. > A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved > known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received > significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community > interest to be considered valuable. What is the meaning of "community interest." From which community, specifically? Does "community interest" include actual deployment in commercial networks, or ... ?? I'm not pretending to know the answer here, just asking the question. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
