Minor comments on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

Scott Bradner sob at harvard.edu
Fri Feb 28 16:09:19 CET 2003

> they cycled a couple of times
> including IETF spec text, and trying to keep it synced with IETF
> versions as they moved forward ("moved around"), but this was horrid.

this did happen with the ITU-T but their processes were reworked 
so they could reference "standards" documents from other organizations that
developed standards - this too quite a while for various reasons (RFC
2436 documents part of that)

it was not just the IETF douments that the ITU-T had trouble referencing
this also included the ATM forum etc

it was important that it was seen that the IETF was developing "standards"
and had clear processes to do so (the same was true with ISO pointing
to IETF docs) - I expect its not important that the IETF says it
is a SDO or says its a SDO+ or it says its an SDO & RO (research 
organization) - but, in fact, one of the things that the IETF does is
develop things the world sees as "standards"


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list