Re: prerequisite for change (was Re:

Martin Rex <> Wed, 02 February 2011 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28593A6B5C for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:36:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.154
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lsnIgbcGfKs for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAA83A68D8 for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (26) with ESMTP id p121dlXM012160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 02:39:47 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: prerequisite for change (was Re:
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:39:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> from "Brian E Carpenter" at Jan 30, 11 01:01:48 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SAP: out
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:36:33 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> The bar for PS has crept up, IMHO, precisely because the bar
> for DS/STD has appeared too high to be readily attainable.

Lowering the bar will result in the I-Ds on which the first rush of
implementations are currently being based on becoming the PS document.

But I fail to see how a lowered bar for PS would encourage folks
to tackle DS.  Frankly, I believe just the opposite is going to happen.

For many vendors, the working model is switched from "development mode"
to "maintenance mode" as soon as the product is shipped.  And when that
switch happens, most of the existing resources are reassigned to new
features, rather than improving stuff that is in maintenance mode.

And when DS/STD are collapsed into one and the requirements for the
new STD are at least as high as for the old DS, then the gap between
the new PS and the new STD will be much larger than between old PS
and old DS, resulting in two problems: more resistence from early
implementors to change the document, and less resources from the
vendors to improve a document describing a product that has already
shipped.  The ones who profit most from an improved document would
be those vendors that haven't implemented or shipped yet, and many
of these are not active in the WG or even in the IETF at all.

The reliably predictable outcome of lowering the bar for PS is that
there will be new PS documents with significantly lower quality.

But so far I've not seen any remotely convincing rationale why
the change of PS would improve the likelihood for PS->STD
transitions.  Personally, I believe it will have just the
opposite effect, considering that a non-marginal fraction of
us work for large organizations and how these usually operate.