Re: [EAI] Rechartering

["YAO Jiankang" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shawn Steele" <[e-mail]>
To: "YAO Jiankang" <[e-mail]>; "John C Klensin" <[e-mail]>; "Harald Alvestrand" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: [EAI] Rechartering

>I think that'll "work", however the current RFCs are EXPERIMENTAL, not STANDARD.  So any future RFCs need not be compatible with the experimental >RFCs  Should that (IMO very bad thing) happen, then the Chinese standard and the IETF standards would diverge :(



China eai standards are a series of standards. every eai rfc is supposed to be published as a standard.
the first chinese standard based on RFC4952 is supposed to be published at the end of this year. others will be published next year. So if during these 2 years, we move to the standard track progress, Chinese standard will be updated to follow these new updates. 


>I think it would be "safest" if the IETF RFCs were updated to standards first, then the Chinese standards follow those, however I don't believe that'll happen in >practice.  

as you know, China is eager to have the EAI standard to guide the implmentation.

as said above,  if during these 2 years,  the first version of Chinese standard will be updated to follow these new updates. 
if more than 2 years, china may publish other eai standard and promote the industry to use.

according to the current  discussion, it seems that there is a dilemma: no industry to join the test or deployment  may mean not enough tests of eai; more industry to join the tests of eai means that there is a possibility of a defacto standard of eai.


>Then the IETF will have to choose to either just turn the experimental RFCs into real standards with minimal changes to conform to the defacto Chinese >standard, or to deviate from the Chinese standard and break what might already be implimented.

in some sense,  I share the concerns with you. we will try to make the other  china standard publication based on RFC 5335 5336 or other new standard track rfc  to catch up the new progress of EAI WG.  if there is no standard track progress or plan in IETF, the industry will have to follow rfc5335 5336 5504 to implement eai because there is market needs even that there are no chinese standard to guide that implementation.

so I appreciate your points: moving too fast is risk; moving cautiously/slowly is also a risk.


Yao Jiankang
CNNIC

>- Shawn