Re: [Asdf] on ASDF cycling at internet-draft

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> As Carsten says, it's not our WG's purpose to try to fix the IESG, I guess we
> just have to work around things.

Well, it's not for the working group to fix the IESG or the IETF in
general, but it *is* for the working group to decide how the working
group should operate.  If the working group, by rough consensus,
thinks that publishing a PS spec with the intention of replacing it
after more "running code" experience, then that's what the working
group should do.  If it's the rough consensus that going through
implementation experience during the development of the first PS spec
is the better way, then that's what should happen.  It's up to the
working group, and I'm behind either approach.

Barry

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:44 PM Michael Richardson
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Michael, have a chat with Mark Nottingham: this is what httpbis did and
>     > quic is doing, and it worked very effectively for them.
>
> Yes, I know that they did this.
> I believe it works because the parties involved are
>   a) funded to implement Internet-Drafts (not just discuss)
>   b) actively deploy/test, with the understanding that it may break
>   c) includes implementers that have both significant client and server properties
>
> My impression is that this mostly applies to ASDF as well, although (c) is irrelevant.
>
>     > There are benefits to having a version in a PS RFC, then making the
>     > next version a new PS RFC that Obsoletes the first, and so on.
>
> This is was how RFC1310/RFC1602/RFC2026/etc. intended, and it seems that it
> has again gotten unstuck, pushing WGs like httpbis and quic AND ASDF to take
> this approach.   It seems that every 15 years, the process becomes ossified.
>
> As Carsten says, it's not our WG's purpose to try to fix the IESG, I guess we
> just have to work around things.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-