Document Series
Pete Resnick
presnick at qualcomm.com
Wed Jun 4 16:09:46 CEST 2003
On 6/4/03 at 2:44 PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>what I mean is that if we realize that PS in effect is taken as
>"ready for deployment" (which seems to be how the industry
>interprets it), then maybe we really do need to expect some level of
>implementation and interop testing before we approve something as PS.
So, I read this as saying that industry is interpreting PS as what we
meant DS to mean. That is, industry thinks:
A [Proposed] Standard [is] well-understood and known to be quite
stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
implementation. A [Proposed] Standard may still require additional or
more widespread field experience, since it is possible for
implementations based on [Proposed] Standard specifications to
demonstrate unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in
production environments.
A [Proposed] Standard is normally considered to be a final
specification, and changes are likely to be made only to solve
specific problems encountered. In most circumstances, it is
reasonable for vendors to deploy implementations of [Proposed]
Standards into a disruption sensitive environment.
[2026, section 4.1.2 on Draft Standard, with "industry" edits.]
I don't exactly understand why this should mean that we should (as we
seem to be on our way to doing unofficially already) raise the bar of
PS to be identical to the bar of DS unless we really think that there
is no worth in having Proposed Standard as it was originally intended
(a vetted, though immature, specification). We could go the route
(similar to what CMH suggested) of going Experimental->PS->S, or even
Experimental->DS->S, but I assume that the only thing that this will
result in is industry thinking that Experimental is ready for prime
time. (They already assume that "Informational" is an "IETF-Approved
implementable standard".)
Wouldn't it make more sense to:
- Leave our written processes exactly the way they are;
- *Lower* the bar on PS back to what it was intended to be, get PS's
out early, and do real interop testing early in the process;
- Start putting a boilerplate on PS RFC's which says "OK, now we
really mean it; this isn't ready for prime time!"
- Ignore all screams of horror when we significantly change a
specification that is at PS, publish the changed spec as a new PS and
change the old PS to Historic, and say "I told you so".
I'm not being facetious. Or at least, I'm not being totally
facetious. If the problem we are addressing is really, "Industry
expects more out of PS than we intended", the problem can be
addressed by either changing our interpretation of PS to meet
industry expectations, or by changing industry expectations. The
former seems to be what the IESG has been doing for some time now,
and the result has been that some industry folks have taken to
considering Internet Drafts stable enough to implement. This seems
destined for an arms race. I'm more inclined to attempt the latter if
we can.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick at qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list