NOT "inciting to riot" (was: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard)

Spencer Dawkins spencer at mcsr-labs.org
Sun May 25 23:35:08 CEST 2003


Dear Keith.

Yes, precisely - there were two subthreads, one subthread that I would
expect during Last Call ("you have normative references that aren't
standards-track") and one that I would have hoped would NOT be
taking place during Last Call ("this is dumb, not useful, ..."). It was
not at all clear to me what language we would point to (2026 or otherwise)
to support a decision not to standardize "IP over MIME", so we're
left with jawing back and forth to see whether we really standarize it or
not, and when Aaron Falk and I finally submit our long-threatened
"IP over Hand Percussion" ID as a Proposed Standard, there's no
clear answer from "IP over MIME", so we'll get to have the same
discussion with a slightly-different subject line then, too...

Spencer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
Cc: <moore at cs.utk.edu>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: NOT "inciting to riot" (was: Last Call: IP over MIME to
Proposed Standard)


> > And the relevant point for this group is that I haven't seen anyone
> > pointing to something written down as a filter for whether "IP
> > over MIME" is something the IETF should standardize.
>
> you mean besides RFC 2026?
>
> specifically the bits about
>
>    A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
>    known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
>    significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
>    interest to be considered valuable.
>
> and
>
>    A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with
>    respect to the requirements placed upon it.
>
> ?
>
> but yes, I do think that the "IP over MIME" discussion is probably a good
> example of why we need a better defined scope for IETF standardization
> activities.
>
> Keith



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list