Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

< stick in the mud >

> It seems to me that this is the point of contention, namely that in certain
> parts of the industry, there is a strong feeling that there is a lot of
> value in widespread deployment of pre-standard protocols as long as the
> versioning is done correctly, and so we do in fact want to promote
> deployment.

and your description of how tls did this with 1.3, 'marked' versions of
internet-drafts, seemed to work well.  and those with colder feet could
wait for the rfc.  but i note that the triel implementations seemed not
to be deployed in production until the ietf sausage was made.  this
seems prudent.

i have seen some, shall we say, insufficiently well thought out ideas
pushed in wgs.  for me, the key here is review and consensus before it
has an ietf label.  some wgs put a higher bar for becoming adopted than
ohters.  my sympathy for that is increasing.

a few of us are working on some drafts which have trial implementations,
one already published and at least one in the cooker.  the drafts and
the implementations are being evolved.  git repositories seem to work
pretty well; though we tend to gogs over github when we want a gooey
over git.  we hope to have some interop, and expect to go through the wg
and ietf last call sausage machines if we want to put the ietf
imprimatur on them.

randy