Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> Fri, 12 November 2010 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792273A6452 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:05:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.023
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.226, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lhf-ouV0Xk4W for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:05:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpde01.sap-ag.de (smtpde01.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764433A63EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde01.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id oAC05qmq004637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:05:57 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-Id: <201011120005.oAC05pHn022903@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Subject: Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:05:51 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <4CDB7026.5090903@dcrocker.net> from "Dave CROCKER" at Nov 11, 10 12:25:10 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanner: Virus Scanner virwal07
X-SAP: out
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:05:36 -0000

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> I -- since I'm the editor of the doc, I get wording blame -- took it as
> a given that "widespread use" required interoperability.  And I wish
> I could say that you were the first to notice the potential hole is our
> existing language.  (In fact, it took some iterations before I
> comprehended what problem was being seen in the language.)
> 
> Frankly, I think it's an edge condition, because the 'violation' would
> be having an IETF standards track specification that gained widespread
> use, but with only one implementation.

I've seen that happening several times.

One single vendor having created an installed base that is
simply to large to ignore (several millions to several hundred millions)
and with significant incompatibilities to the original spec.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4178#appendix-C

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5929#section-8


-Martin