The need for smaller protocol specifications

[Spencer Dawkins]

Dear Erik,

<groping for a solution>

Re: Component specifications as Experimental...

The thing I would wonder about is simply moving the "one stage standard"
problem from Proposed Standard to Experimental.

</groping for a solution>

Trying to frame my question in an on-topic way - does the IETF's multiple
stages of approval matter to the consumers of our specifications?

Variants of this question include:

o When we publish a proprietary specification as Informational and then
publish
a WG specification as Proposed Standard, is this a distinction that matters
to the Internet community?

o When we publish (as we often do) TCP changes as Experimental, do
implementors wait for Proposed Standard approval before including
them in products?

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark at sun.com>
To: "Dean Willis" <dean.willis at softarmor.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; "'Erik Nordmark'"
<Erik.Nordmark at sun.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: RE: The need for smaller protocol specifications


>
> While prptocols that don't have all of the above might be useful
> to specify and implement as part of a better understanding of the
> problem and solution spaces, it would seem odd to call somethhing
> an IETF standard it is doesn't fit into the puzzle of existing
> standards.
>
> So perhaps there is an argument that such "components" be experimental
> RFCs and when they fit better into the puzzle they can move to the
standards
> track. Making them fit might involve modifications to the protocol
> itself, or the addition of some more components that provide the glue.
>
>   Erik