pausable explanation for the Document Series

[Charlie Perkins]

Hello Keith

Keith Moore wrote:

>>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.
>
But the rest of the working group would have disagreed, and the discussion
could have continued for years.

>
>  
>
>>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".
>
Implementation tests whether it can be built.  Deployment tests
whether it works.  I think my formulation is correct.  I also think that
we MUST NOT publish Proposed Standard documents that do not
have implementation experience and interoperability experience.

>
>  
>
>>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.
>
I know that your criteria have the effects that you have described in
your e-mails, enough so that I can stand by my statement.

>
>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?
>
Yes.  I agree with the statement.

I want to see a more timely Proposed Standard.  If the "Proposal" isn't
right, I want to see that we can recycle to new a new Proposed Standard.

I do NOT believe we have to issue poorer quality documents to meet
better timeliness, but I _do_ think that some AD demands result in the
need to document entire systems instead of just protocols, thus delaying
protocol publication.  This is another big mistake in my opinion.

I suggest that the criterion has to be "does it work", instead of
"how do I use it"?  This is related to the previous discussion about
the need for an applicability statement.

Regards,
Charlie P.