Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Jonathan Rosenberg]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
 > I am FAR from smart on the topic, but my impression is that one
 > common reason to advance beyond PS is because you're being pointed to
 > by another SDO (SIP, for example).

3gpp did not require SIP to be at draft. The recent revision (to 
rfc3261) cycled at proposed and that was just fine for them. They even 
use some informational documents. I suppose it depends on the SDO.

My two cents on the PS/DS/S process. One of the problems in going to 
draft is, AFAIK, all normative references must also be at draft 
standard. THis makes it very hard for documents with many references to 
go to draft. Supposedly, if you reuse other IETF work, you'll have many 
such references. Indeed, several "core" RFCs that many protocols are 
likely to cite normatively, such as RFC 2234 (BNF) and RFC 2396 (URI) 
are both at PS. ALthough I believe both are in the process of advancing, 
it does mean that, until they do, no protocol that uses the IETF 
standard for BNF, for example, can go to draft.

Now, if you should happen to reuse any security protocols (S/MIME, TLS, 
etc.), many of which are also at PS, you have no hope of advancing for 
sure.

The result is a bar for DS that is unachievable for many protocols. We 
want to work on taking SIP to DS in the next revision, but there are too 
many normative references at PS, I expect it will never happen.

Now, is this characteristic of the process a feature or a bug...


-Jonathan R.


-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com