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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 11:08 AM Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> < 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.


I don't want to debate the precise meaning of production, but what I will
say is that at in the case of TLS 1.3, we had pre-draft versions on in
Release
versions of Chrome and Firefox and serving live domains at Cloudflare
(and I think Facebook and Google, but I'd have to check my notes). This
was actually essential to finding problems because there are environments
which will not run prerelease software.



> 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.


Can you be a little more precise about what you mean by "an IETF label".
We pretty routinely have I-Ds that have the draft-ietf prefix without having
consensus on a number of points. Or do you just mean PS, etc.?

-Ekr