IETF mission (RE: pausable explanation for the Document Series)

Keith Moore moore at
Fri Jun 6 10:44:50 CEST 2003

> What I am concerned about is there seems to be a movement to
> make a super-PS, one which would be the equavalent of a DS
> & have no bugs. 

I haven't seen any evidence of such a movement, and that's certainly not what
I've proposed.  Surely nobody thinks it's feasible to get rid of all bugs.
What I've proposed is that we need to figure out what the criteria should
be for "ready for deployment", and that these are probably slightly higher
than those currently in place for PS (but IMHO lower than those required for
DS).  "ready for deployment" doesn't mean "bug-free", but it does seem to
imply a certain amount of diligence in looking for bugs, and at least
minimal implementation and testing.

> I have noticed that simple protocol documents are getting overloaded with a
> lot of applicability info, deployment concerns, best practices, and
> implementation guides.

I think you exaggerate when you say "overloaded".  But these most certainly do
belong in a protocol standard, and there's some experience that says that
more likely to be ignored if placed in a separate document.  (though it might
help if our document numbering scheme made it easier to find related


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list