RJ Atkinson rja at
Wed Feb 19 12:38:23 CET 2003

On Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003, at 11:37 America/Montreal, Mark Allman 
>> RFC 2001, which was a Proposed Standard, and are updated in RFC 3390,
>> which is a Proposed Standard ...
>> Transport Is Different, but we seem to be using Experimental for
>> something pretty close to "a proposed standard" - that's what we did
>> with RFC 3465, anyway. The idea was to let Appropriate Byte Counting
>> "age" before it was widely deployed, and Experimental was intended
>> to discourage wide deployment...
> (And, what we did with RFC2414, which was experimental and turned
> into 3390 which is PS.)

Good point.

This is a mechanism that existing WGs and existing WG Chairs can use
to get specs out the door when going to PS becomes too much of a
hurdle.  Then, the WG can keep working on the spec (and whatever
de facto hurdles exist to PS) to get it to PS later on.

Generally, it is a problem that we get inadequate operational feedback
(not just ISP feedback, but also Enterprise feedback) in most of our
specs.  And I'm NOT suggesting that we add any new requirements to the
excessive (IMHO) hurdles that exist today.  I am saying we all need
to continue working to get more operational folks (again, not just
ISPs, but also Enterprise users) involved in IETF lists, WGs, and
document review.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list