Re: Another twist on my proposal

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Fri, 05 May 1995 20:45 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11182; 5 May 95 16:45 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11178; 5 May 95 16:45 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15003; 5 May 95 16:45 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11160; 5 May 95 16:45 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11155; 5 May 95 16:45 EDT
Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14985; 5 May 95 16:45 EDT
Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Fri, 5 May 1995 16:46:09 -0400
Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Fri, 5 May 1995 16:46:09 -0400
Received: from kasten.europa by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00045; Fri, 5 May 95 16:43:38 EDT
Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 16:43:38 -0400
Message-Id: <9505052043.AA00045@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: mo@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Another twist on my proposal
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
X-Orig-Sender: kasten@mailserv-d.ftp.com
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Fri May 5 16:43:13 1995]
Originating-Client: europa
Content-Length: 1327

 > Instead of "Completely Random Application or Protocol", call the new
 > RFC class
 > 
 >         "Cannot Ever Be A Standard"

 >         If you cannot convince the IESG you have A Good Idea, the
 >         document can still be published as a CEBAS, but there is
 >         a profound consequence:  the protocol or technology described
 >         in the document will be barred from ever being introduced
 >         into the Standards Track "without fundamental revision or
 >         reformulation."

I'm not sure that I like this, even with the waivers. I could imagine
that what seems like a completely stupid idea today and not worthy of
even being considered for standardizing, could, because of changes of
other circumstances, all of a sudden become A Really Good Idea. Or,
we, the IESG might, not be as smart of farsighted as we might think
that we are, and turn something into a CEBAS that shouldn't be.

Suppose that it's 10 years ago and some people came up to us and said
here's classless routing (CIDR). It might well have received a CEBAS
rating then (run out of addresses? hah! never!). Yet today...

--
Frank Kastenholz    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
                     present... As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
                     act anew" - A. Lincoln