Document Series

Joel M. Halpern joel at
Wed Jun 4 17:30:06 CEST 2003

[Somewhere on the border between problems and solutions...]

While I like the goal Pete describes, I am afraid that the reality does not 

The last hyphen line suggests ignoring the screams of horror when we change 
PS.  I have currently observed working groups that have been resist to 
(sometimes unable to) changing working group internet drafts due to 
complaints about deployment.  I therefore tend to be doubtful of our 
ability in the current structure to ignore those screams.

While I am not happy with declaring most of our work experimental, the 
suggestion on this list would at least make it clear that things can be 

Joel M. Halpern

At 03:09 PM 6/4/2003 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>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.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list