pausable explanation for the Document Series

Keith Moore moore at
Fri Jun 6 12:48:53 CEST 2003

> 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 promulgated.

nope.  I would have marked that address range as "reserved" and
published the document without site-local.

> 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".

No, it meant "let's get implementation experience".

> >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.

You don't even know what my criteria are, Charlie, because I haven't
tried to define them in detail.  

This is the problem statement WG, not the problem resolution WG.
Our job is to identify problems, not to argue over the merits of
solutions that haven't even been outlined yet.  We have a identified
a problem that our standards maturity levels do not match with
either industry expectations or IETF energies.  Do you agree with
that problem statement or not?


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list