pausable explanation for the Document Series
pekkas at netcore.fi
Fri Jun 6 11:07:36 CEST 2003
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:
> > In real world, people implement the protocols for pilot/test purposes in
> > any case. This can be done when the I-D has reached reasonable level of
> > stability.
> Except when the IETF is not timely.
> In a number of cases, people fail
> to update implementations to protocols that are long lived because
> they prefer to wait until the protocol is nearly complete. I have this
> comment from many people (from different organizations) for a number
> of protocols such as MIPv6 and Diameter, for example. Without making much
> effort, I could find a bunch of other examples.
There are a few issues here:
1) I don't know what you see as a problem here: IETF not finishing the
spec quickly, or people failing to test it in a timely fashion?
2) you use the word "update", implying that implementation experience is
updated only a couple of times during the spec cycle; IMHO, if people have
already -once- tested an implementation and provided feedback, I think
that's already a very good success. A problem of course comes when there
are major changes in the protocol and you'd want folks to test it again
and again provide feedback.
IMO, 2) should only be a problem when the document is deemed "ready"
prematurely (and implemented), but is later pushed back and completely
redesigned (e.g. MIPv6). But this is an issue *already* that needs some
serious attention, ie. preventing people from declaring protocol "ready"
when it isn't (by e.g. cross-area reviews etc.).
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
More information about the Problem-statement