Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Olaf Kolkman <> Fri, 01 November 2013 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E4B11E8105 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id od80z-ym-al6 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9A311E80F6 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:980:2282:1:18da:f57a:e7ee:f93e] ([IPv6:2001:980:2282:1:18da:f57a:e7ee:f93e]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA18C3aw034278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:12:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from
Authentication-Results:; dmarc=none
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 rA18C3aw034278
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1383293529; bh=NEGrcGClxhxSCQL2UyhiYc7SVaBLlWUaiQ3IeFS+4/o=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=kLd3BMyRE+hgKfM4R9ZUQQ7GC8d5otHZVlzAcKzPUKT5DHMSMoNzICGw3LhszV1bB M6UWj1ST4Da6L7PtNr9/pxmHfINOuA4PEzgngmIGEZ8+mM4jV4G5MxZ/8dp8V6ZeLq FwRdgPKS1dwU95hno+EMtfgLGelT4/XD8sy8kjbM=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_01BD1140-A583-4FE0-89FA-9853BF928696"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Olaf Kolkman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:12:02 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: SM <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 ( [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:12:08 +0100 (CET)
Cc: "<>" <>, Dave Crocker <>, " list" <>
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 08:12:24 -0000

On 1 nov. 2013, at 01:00, SM <> wrote:

>  "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.

Note that the text says that they are ready for market based product development and does not proscribe a test, in fact there is also no IPR test for proposed standards. The ‘IPR test’ what happens after market deployment: did market players have no problem getting (F)RAND licenses, hence it is an important, albeit somewhat implicit, criterium in going from Proposed to Internet Standard.

Frankly, if we develop standard track document that, in general, are not ready to be put in products hen it is going to be very very difficult to explain the relevance of the IETF. Not only to the policy people but also to the people who pay us to develop standards.

And off-course it is not black and white, hence the ‘in general’ in the sentence above. In the cases where we collectively think that we are not quite there there is the escape route that we’ve put in section 4.