pausable explanation for the Document Series

Charlie Perkins charliep at
Fri Jun 6 09:38:10 CEST 2003

Hello Keith,

Keith Moore wrote

>gee, it's tempting, but I'm not going to get into an argument about which
>vendors are reputable.  suffice it to say that for kinds of the products I
>buy, there are none.  YMMV.
Indeed, my mileage varies.

>>But when you hear that industry has expectations about timeliness
>>you seem to go nonlinear.  
>nope.  it's when I hear suggestions that we should lower the quality of our
>output even further because we're supposedly trying to make it "perfect" that
>I go nonlinear.
Let's take site-local as an example.  By your criteria, it seems to me we
still would not have published any IPv6 address architecture document
because of seeming flaw in the site-local design philosophy that was

I suggest that it would have been totally counterproductive to introduce 
such delay.

Furthermore, I believe that other protocol efforts HAVE sustained nearly
equal damage because of similar reluctance to allow wider deployment
experience.  Proposed Standard effectively mean{s,t}, "let's get wider
deployment experience".

>>Furthermore, I suggest that IETF processes
>>demotivate and drain the energy of otherwise enthusiastic IETF engineers.
>agree entirely.  but I propose that we fix the process to make better use 
>of those energies rather than simply relaxing our criteria in the interest
>of timeliness.
Your criteria strongly inhibit timeliness.

Charlie P.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list