Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

["Russ Housley" <[e-mail]>]

Dave:

This is a significant improvement from my perspective.  We need a
mechanism to implement it.  The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.

Russ


> Folks,
>
> On 11/11/2010 12:25 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> To establish the base: It is not possible to achieve widespread use on
>> the
>> Internet without having multiple components interacting. That's called
>> interoperability.
>>
>> However, the interoperability might be among components that are clones
>> of a
>> single code base.
>>
>> So our language needs to be enhanced to cover multiple implementations.
>> And as
>> long as the language hood is up, we might as well put in a turbo-booster
>> that
>> asserts the higher octane 'interoperability' word.
>
>
> A hallway conversation with Russ added an item that simply had not
> occurred to me:
>
>     There might be multiple implementations that rely on on undocumented
> modifications of the spec.  This means that an additional, interoperable
> implementation cannot be made purely from the specification.
>
> Again, I believe the requirement for the document is "merely" to get the
> wording
> right.  I do not believe any of us differ on the actual meaning we are
> trying to
> achieve.  That is, I have not seen anything that indicates we have
> disparity
> about the intended requirement.
>
> Test language: (*)
>
>       (Full) Internet Standard:
>
>       The Internet community achieves rough consensus -- on using
>       the multiple, independent implementations of a specification
>
> and
>
>       3.3.  [Full] Internet Standard (IS)
>
>       This is the existing final standards status, based on attainment of
>       significant community acceptance, as demonstrated by use of
> multiple,
>       independent implementations that conform to the specification.
>
> d/
>
> ps.  I just realized that the original language that Russ cited said "on
> using
> the running code of a specification".  "Of a specification" explicitly
> means
> that the stuff that is running is the spec and, therefore, can't really
> mean
> that it's using hallway agreements.  (However I think it's dandy to make
> the
> Section 3.3 language bullet-proofed against creative misunderstanding.)
>
> (*) This is just from me; it hasn't been vetted with my co-authors.
>
> --
>
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
>