Re: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Tue, 04 December 2007 18:29 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcWP-0001le-6Q; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:29:29 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcWO-0001jc-8C for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:29:28 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcWN-0001iN-UC for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:29:27 -0500
Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcWM-000754-GV for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:29:27 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=IcJqH8zEoYREdpDSZgnB9yAffFKZ5aJH2Ja5f09IQwxvzTgELaixSXEYWn4E7Pcz; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [64.105.35.77] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IzcWL-00073O-A5 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:29:25 -0500
Message-ID: <001a01c836a3$dc99df60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
References: <20071204164243.GA23212@nic.fr>
Subject: Re: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:31:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a4beb055f130b31a8b7d45ec643c87d529774bbd4caa7d44350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.105.35.77
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Hi -

> From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
> To: <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:42 AM
> Subject: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?
...
> That's a completely new argument for me, and a strange one. AFAIK,
> there is no general rule in the IETF that the IETF must have "change
> control" over the specifications it uses. Otherwise, we would never
> used standards from very closed SDOs like ISO or IEEE.
> 
> And Netconf does not follow this practice, anyway, since it uses XML,
> hardly a standard that the IETF controls.
> 
> Asking for "change control" here really looks like a modern form of
> "NIH".

Agreed, but...  I understand how the bad experience with ASN.1's
mutations over the years could lead to this perspective.  The ASN.1
used for SNMP in the 1980s little resembles what is called
ASN.1 today.  (Those same changes also caused great heartburn
in ISO/ITU-land as well.  The ripple effects from the dropping of the
MACRO notation, bad as it was, turned into a tidal wave of changes
to other standards that, for example, relied on ROSE or ANY.)

Randy