Re: [newtrk] Re: IESG comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

> I did some.  The big issue is that many email addresses have changed,
> and many working groups have gone poof.  I don't think the process was
> onerous.  I also did some nudging to get some updates out there (like
> CIDR).  One thing I would suggest is that the IESG look at the remaining
> documents and consider getting them promoted (somehow).  I put off that
> discussion because I figured this group would have related output.

Eliot, I would like to see "promoted (somehow)" happen, and maybe happen in 
a way that looks like the way decruft happened (I mean "as a mass movement", 
not "over a period of years").

As best I can tell, the plan behind the three-level standards track was "up 
or out" - either a specification advances or it goes away, with the default 
being "goes away". The current suspended-animation of proposed standards was 
never the plan.

Now that we have conclusively proved that a only relatively small number of 
proposed standards will ever "go away" in my lifetime, is it worth 
re-thinking the default, at least in some cases?

I mean, it's just BARELY possible that advancing RFC 2581 isn't going to 
take out the Internet, since every TCP on earth implements slow start, 
congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, and fast recovery, and maybe this one 
RFC could advance to draft standard even if no one writes up 
interoperability reports?

Perhaps there are others, that we could be equally daring about :-)

Spencer 


.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html