Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

SM <> Fri, 01 November 2013 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76CF411E810C for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.575
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wfn-07EdoOyl for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EEB11E81C8 for <>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA1046Tg023738; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1383264252; bh=X8YY5KCr2jy4Lrx5YKK60nCKMwpoFQY5WTkzXxeyG1c=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=O5/iMEqLChGVkztqdOyMJ2sxNMQRcb+nJE6gvDdfJWCZ8g9TGMZ3+vS4mV2yFpyey 4gFWD0xQuz/nOM96tzgsT012BmPQY7llowr+8MNIqtLzH4YpXSvkZWVGE3T10W5zDg VDWlnZfzisCmjdTh+7L9IvQC1sPseoAVofnAkCCs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1383264252;; bh=X8YY5KCr2jy4Lrx5YKK60nCKMwpoFQY5WTkzXxeyG1c=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rY+1OGZG/QfJTQccYcyZKteq+zjWw3KU+wWwrOjWbBXI835ZYUpO4khxP3qGPMO9d uFHUUAH/fVycX4Jq0CmIbtjEJlIPERR1Ot1YjOgtL+UlQ9dVMHzWADkmvfyi6ZUBLF m/Rm2axyUsagS6TDYoF/PzQTH3pBjgP7+DeLBZHA=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:00:37 -0700
To:, Olaf Kolkman <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:04:20 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 11:06 31-10-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Note that the motivation for Olaf's draft is the misunderstanding by 
>others of the nature and worth of Proposed Standards documents.  We 
>do not have complaints about the actual /quality/ of the 
>specifications, but of the language describing their formal status.


>In effect, such folk are distracted by some of the words in RFC 
>2026. We can't fix their style of reading or limitations in how they 
>integrate information and also we cannot ignore such folk.

The IAB sent a comment about ICT standardization to a directorate of 
the European Commission in 2009.  My interpretation of the intent is 
that it was so that the IETF is recognized more broadly among 
standardization organizations.  The comment stated that the IETF and 
IAB exert no control over the nature or identity of participants in IETF
activities.  Some parts of the comment was about standards 
making.  Most of the comments are usually about the process instead 
of the quality of the specifications.  If IETF  ignores such folks 
(see above) it can affect where the RFCs can be used.

In Section 2:

   "Hence IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they
    are ready for the usual market-based product development and
    deployment efforts into the Internet."

I am not comfortable with having that text in BCP 9.  The argument up 
to now has been running code and that that is the line which has been 
used for test of quality.  A better test of quality might be someone 
who has not followed the working group and who can implement the 
specification.  There is also the IPR test.  That is also one of the 
issues mentioned by the audience which the document targets.