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

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

Harald,

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: Either do this work (and now we 
> know what size work it is) or abandon the idea that standards-track status 
> will ever be made to conform to reality.

I would be good either way. If the IETF develops standards, we should take 
the standards process seriously. If the IETF develops specifications, and 
drops its standards track, we wouldn't need to think about standards-track 
status at all.

I am less comfortable with being stuck in the middle ("oh, my gosh. You read 
RFC 2026 and thought that implementing 'standard TCP' was a BETTER idea than 
coding proposed-standard slow start and congestion avoidance?")...

Yes, I do know about TCPM, and that's kind of the point. TCPM happened after 
a discussion on the end-to-end list where we decided that NOBODY knew what 
"TCP" was. If Internet Standard-level documents suggest an answer that is 
actually worse than "we don't know", this is not a good thing.

> I agree with David that asking the IESG to take on more work (to push the 
> remaining docs up the track) is a non-starter. The IESG's job in this 
> context is (I think) to make it possible for other people to do the job.

I agree with Harald agreeing with David (and appreciate David sending his 
note to the list and precipitating the discussion).

Thanks,

Spencer 


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