On 7/19/07 1:08 PM, David Barrett wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Re: [BEHAVE] Re: ICE deployment data before LC for RFC
To be clear: to get this kind of experience (especially as it pertains
to interoperability), you need to have a stable (i.e., frozen)
specification. Internet Drafts simply don't provide an appropriate basis
for the kinds of proof that you and others are demanding.
It seems premature to freeze the specification before we've proven that what
specified actually works. Indeed, the most successful real-world projects
I've participated in worked in the exact opposite manner.
In that case, you're arguing with the IETF standards process, and have
decided to beat on ICE as a proxy whipping boy for reasons that have no
technical basis in ICE itself. The current process surrounding RFC
publication is detailed in RFC 2026. Section 4.1 details the process
you're misunderstanding. It's short. You should read it.
If you're up to it, RFC 3774 and RFC 3844 also provide some useful
background on the work that has been done in this area recently.
Concerns about IETF RFC publication process in general -- and that's
what you're arguing about here, not ICE itself -- are best addressed to
the IETF-general mailing list and/or the IESG itself (as the conclusion
of the problem WG was that issues surrounding the standards process were
to be handed back to the IESG).
/a
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
