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

[Bound, Jim]

Every spec MUST have applicability statement or it should not get past
the RFC Editor even for experimental.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:34 AM
> To: john.loughney at nokia.com; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: IETF mission (RE: pausable explanation for the 
> Document Series)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --On torsdag, juni 05, 2003 11:36:04 +0300 
> john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:
> 
> >> The more-core problem is industry running on protocols with design 
> >> flaws and protocol bugs, which cannot be fixed because of the 
> >> installed base.
> >
> > Depends upon how you look at things.  I would say that the 
> more-core 
> > problem is that our quality control may be less than ideal.  As the 
> > IETF is not a protocol enforcement agency, what the 
> industry does with 
> > what we make is beyond our control, in my opinion.
> 
> actually this comes back to the IETF mission statement thing....
> 
> if the mission of the IETF is to "make the Internet work", with our 
> particular task in pursuit of that mission being to "make 
> high quality, 
> timely standards for the Internet", then flaws in the 
> standards that the 
> industry runs on are signs that we haven't achieved our mission.
> 
> I don't think we can assert "control", in the sense of "I decide, it 
> happens" - if I asserted that I was in control of the IETF, 
> I'd be as silly 
> as if the IETF claimed that it was in control of the Internet.
> 
> But I do have influence over what the IETF does (and so do 
> you), and the 
> IETF does have influence over what the industry does.
> 
> Might be semantic quibbling .... then again, it might 
> actually matter when 
> we decide what to do.
> 
> >
> >> If PS was perfect, this would not be a serious problem. 
> But it isn't 
> >> so.
> >
> > This touches on the relevant issue.  Should PS be perfect? At what 
> > level do we raise (or lower) the bar?  What can we do about it? One 
> > possibility would be that we make sure that PS documents are as 
> > perfect as possible (raise the bar).  Another could be to 
> require some 
> > sort of best practices document for most major PS documents (which 
> > would capture operational issues, etc).
> 
> RFC 2026 invented the term "applicability statements" - 
> that's a term that 
> seems to have fallen by the wayside......
> 
> >  Another
> > could be your Maintenance Team idea, especially if it is 
> coupled with 
> > an object that captures all of the relevant RFCs, drafts in 
> progress, 
> > bug reports, etc.  I also think that if we go the route of 
> Maintenence 
> > Teams, perhaps the object could also preserve any issue 
> lists created 
> > during WG / IETF last call.
> 
> The "protocol, its current state and history book" site? 
> Seems to make 
> sense to me..... much of ancient history is actually 
> preserved in various 
> archives, but it can be VERY hard to find......
> 
> Nice thought!
> 
>