Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability.

Brian, I doubt that we could have reached anything resembling rough 
consensus on changes (to IPv6) every six months.  I suspect (although 
this is very much a subjective guess) that focusing on such six-monthly 
deliverables would have made it even harder to get agreement on the hard 
issues that did finally get addressed (however badly) in the revision.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/6/2020 11:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 07-Jul-20 13:14, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> (Maybe not directly a question for you but...)
> 
> No, there are many people more qualified to answer than me for the SMTP
> case. I'm pretty sure IPv6 would have gone more smoothly with 6-monthly
> issues of "Node Requirements", though. There are too many interlocking
> pieces and developers were left to make their own choices.
> 
>     Brian
> 
>>
>> On 06/07/2020 23:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> SMTP has been the classical example for many years, and I suspect
>>> that RTCWEB might furnish another good example of this problem before
>>> long.
>> Do we have evidence as to the (good, bad or neutral) impact
>> of the stately pace of the evolution of email standards-
>> track  RFCs? I could imagine the net effect being overall
>> positive or negative but am unsure which may be the case. I
>> suspect it may be more likely that the actual impact is not
>> correlated with RFC numbers at all, but that may also be
>> wrong.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> 