The need for smaller protocol specifications

[Steve Coya]

>>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?

Define Internet Community. IOW, replace "community" with "developers." I
do believe the distinction is understood by the vendors (be they companies
or individuals) who actually implement the protocol defined in the RFC.
Also, when there is both a WG effort and a propriatary Informational RFC,
the latter typically includes an IESG note, pointing out the existance
(and implied preference) of the Proposed Standard. 


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

>From what I recall, some do and some don't. Those that do are typically
particiants in the WG that produced the Experimental RFC. 

Back in the early 90s, there was a concern that some vendors would not
implement Proposed Standards, but wait for Draft - that was when IETF
meeting attedance was under 500. Today is different as there seem to be
many RFCs remaining at Proposed (and everyone confuses product
differentation with protocol specifications)


That's my recollection, and is based on history - not current events.


Steve