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

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 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
...
> 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)

A part of that might also be caused by normative references problems. 
I don't think we have much data on that as we haven't run an 
experiment (yet).

> - 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)

Some of this would in fact usually be documenting the product bugs 
that were caused by ambiguous or incorrect specification.  You're 
right that once you've figured out a way to fix a spec problem in YOUR 
implementation, there may be marginal interest in fixing it in the 
spec.  However, I believe doing so will reduce the load on customer 
support (and ultimately also engineering which will need to answer the 
escalated support issues), because many of the support issues are 
actually caused by interoperability between different products or 
vendors.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf