Keith Moore moore at
Wed Feb 19 12:12:02 CET 2003

> However, I think there are different ways to ask the above 
> question that may be as, or more, helpful:
> 	* How many documents do we hold before they are accepted
> 	at Proposed in the hope of getting them [more] right,
> 	thereby indirectly encouraging vendors to deploy things
> 	while they are still I-Ds ?

Or - to what extent does delaying publication of specifications
in order to fix them encourage implementors to improve their products?
> 	* How many protocols are implemented and maintained, in
> 	practice, as "proposed plus oral tradition" or "proposed
> 	plus conventional wisdom from interoperability
> 	experience"?  If this number is non-trivial, it is bad
> 	news because it implies that we haven't provided
> 	sufficient documentation for someone to implement a
> 	standard properly unless he or she is a member of the
> 	community, communicating with others.

Another thing I've thought for a long time is that forcing review/revisions of
entire documents for the purpose of minor bug fixing (which is usually what
happens at DS/FS stage) is just too painful.  Maybe we should make it possible
to declare a DS/FS that consist of the original document(s) as modified by 
some other document(s) - which might consist of changes and/or implementation
advice gleaned from experience. 

Another way to look at it is: is revising lengthy documents the best way to
document the oral tradition that is currently necessary for successful 
implementation of a protocol?  Seems like the diffs are much more useful...


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list