Re: Comments on draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

Has this been exercised in the past, say, 5 years?

At least for widely-implemented protocols, such as SIP, there is no  
reasonable way to say "there is only one implementation that does X",  
as there is no plausible way to catalog all such implementations.  
Most of the implementors don't show up at IETF meetings and  
implementations are written by dozens of small start-ups, open source  
systems and other non-traditional sources.

This provision actually discourages any DS effort: the danger is that  
you can't find an implementation that does use a certain feature, you  
deprecate it and then find that there was some SDO or implementor  
somewhere that actually did find this extremely useful. That just  
makes everyone look silly.

On Jul 13, 2006, at 7:29 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> there is one useful aspect of our DS contortions.  When we do the  
> work, we actually figure out which features turn out not to be  
> used, and get them out of the spec.
> OSPF had ToS routing in its PS specification.  It turned out that  
> there was only one implementation.
> So when the protocol was ready to advance, that feature was removed.
> Knowing that the feature was not being used proved very helpful to  
> us later.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> At 02:45 AM 7/13/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Fred Baker wrote:
>> > I would like to believe that a well documented interoperability  
>> test
>> > constitutes DS qualification; the current DS qualification sets the
>> > bar somewhat higher than that, and I note that few documents  
>> actually
>> > achieve that, even though we can daily see implementations
>> > interoperating in the field at PS.
>>
>> Some data to Fred's point:
>>
>> By RFC, not by STD (obviously):
>>
>> Status  1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> PS      102     119     71      105     103     131     169
>> DRAFT   6       6       2       4       7       7       3
>> STD     3(*)    2       0       8*      3       0       1
>>
>>
>> (*) 3 in 1999 were SMIv2 6 in 2002 were SNMP.
>>
>> These are rough based on 10 minutes of scripting I did back in  
>> March.  I believe there are two reasons for the huge gap between  
>> PS and DRAFT:
>>
>>  - it's difficult to get there (interop requirements, picking out
>>    uncommonly used features, etc)
>>  - nobody wants or needs to do the work (what GM in her right
>>    mind would want her experts working on something that neither
>>    generates new features nor fixes product bugs)
>>
>> If Iljitsch's proposal is that the IESG "makes a call" based  
>> perhaps on somebody's request with some modest effort to  
>> demonstrate that a spec is ready for the next step, I think that  
>> actually would be a fine two-step approach.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf