Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.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 299BC1A01C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:14:57 -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 QodysHRvW0Jp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345891A01B2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p61so10851367wes.39 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=kQkln4Ml6ohzDGr7WP7yFOTG0wM2GU7DTrNLuwCAxmM=; b=krrDFWhOh7mOVz5FZtI/zaYns27cYZ/CilTywIK0t9FoXcA1YDuwuk988i+XR042UV q3+8f0njXNCQ1wCi0i4iZRqK+I5t5GxLU9ILcMIvBDsgQX0NrIoB2kF5RWHogA/p/hVg RLTpt32EipxF8ijJY8PGiESQWCG0oc3CtMEhLaOrlkzYqAdKl5AZ/02a9t+y2ME4DSCm jUMy6V+UqteJfRTNw1QWTLTrny6b0MTJ75wWEr48+EDXZnEQFWLgMnLaJVr9w1V95EDC Vpgoh7yEoGh474US1lnw6ip1/l5slNj4MWXlnXKCGirUTAIaFAbzLGuhltMuROpYA6Ny ZqWw==
X-Received: by 10.194.60.114 with SMTP id g18mr2334362wjr.61.1397657688518; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.248.99] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h1sm34545500wjy.7.2014.04.16.07.14.47 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <534E8D3B.7080705@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:14:42 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B1D87F9-ED94-4B4A-B355-CE4D6AE7145B@gmail.com>
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> <534DC46C.60703@gmail.com> <8962F23C-1486-4F52-AD58-BE64CFBC3B4A@thomasclausen.org> <534E8D3B.7080705@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8c24_2UtZKkaZLHpZ8rIp4a_fI8
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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:14:57 -0000

On Apr 16, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:

> On 4/16/2014 9:31 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote:
>> 
>> FWIW, my personal belief is that "running code" should be a
>> requirement for anything going std. track -- and that a (mandatory)
>> period as Experimental prior to go std. track would yield the stable
>> spec against which to reasonably build code, and run
>> (interoperability) tests, fix bugs, etc. If after (pulling a number
>> out my hat here) a year as Experimental there's no running code, then
>> that's probably a good indicator, also, as to if this is something
>> the IETF should bother doing....
>> 
> 
> 
> If there's no running code, or pretty concrete plans and commitments
> to get there, then there's really no need for an Experimental RFC that
> will get a number and last forever.  An I-D that expires in direct
> conjunction with the interest and energy in it is just fine.

Except that an I-D usually doesn’t get IANA allocations, so you use a number from the private space, and you have to coordinate with anyone who wants to interoperate about which private number to use.