Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1D71A0002 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kbjY1w8aFWAW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963831A0049 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wp18so11484012obc.21 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GB0+OgGbKxmRVnVlJlmxnenWXoH2mgeCnI8mYzrOZ7M=; b=KMI6bLTqeWzYYbhru2Sk03WkcemnYhx5WYS53mbUkxpiV1WksCJdQVkUzdr4P+QrJl PPdBd0MkIgdHk1OXySWzJGGddEzMAge5FFdDjEwX3yHpOWUIt6lG4ZfbNj8yAuvviN/w cfUF2wS3FFtMUOXBZXJFBf4QeADQD28EDlg8PhodzSxSiwci6lnFePY/cOq2Z/qaHgit iyrBDK4ypvswZ7pUDSNOM+zfrYpOJNPCTt9ogBzjTKXG+FILYQVlSGMjXyks2/zdRfwa gLhInltPBYVGyWNrwr/oGMInSAijIdNHVUEvJRj3tsYoy2WblF0Gb0sF0LiLZlOytnVW /XSg==
X-Received: by 10.182.55.3 with SMTP id n3mr3832192obp.55.1397605487528; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.13] (cpe-76-187-7-89.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.7.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wy2sm36292036obc.21.2014.04.15.16.44.45 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <534DC46C.60703@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:44:44 -0500
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <201404142144.s3ELipR8014504@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <C16CB48C-9462-4514-B675-D750D4DC9357@piuha.net> <534DB785.7040609@gmail.com> <EF72D31A-8134-42DB-B750-D5C3831869EE@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <EF72D31A-8134-42DB-B750-D5C3831869EE@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/52mNaQ2pi4isoXNHklv_IxzigvA
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org List" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:44:52 -0000

On 04/15/2014 06:03 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2014, at 00:49, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The idea was that you could declare a specific Internet-Draft "good enough for now", for a variety of reasons (which varied from proposal to proposal), and one of the reasons could be "we're going to stop working on this draft until we get some implementation experience".
> Working groups can do that today.
>
> E.g., httpbis calls out some of their HTTP/2.0 drafts as “implementation drafts”.
>
> Giving this qualification a slightly more formal standing (as in a place in the datatracker, an easily accessible list of implementation drafts on the web site, etc.) might help inform implementers that aren't following the entire WG mailing list traffic whether it is time to go ahead implementing.

Exactly.

> (Of course, the interesting part will be how to properly manage the expectation of stability.)

Indeed. Some proposals included a longer-than-six-months expiration 
date, and some other proposals established an archival series (the 
documents weren't called RFCs).

There are various ways to go. We'd just need to pick one.

Spencer