RE: [newtrk] IESG comments on ISD proposal

[Bruce Lilly <[e-mail]>]

On Tue May 10 2005 11:48, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Perhaps someone who was there at the time the STD series was created
> could tell us how many of the STD series documents got there as a result
> of the process and how many were grandfathered in.
> 
> I'll bet that none of the documents that predate the first meeting of
> the IETF went through the IETF process. Not coincidentally the vast
> majority of the core Internet protocols are in this category. DNS is the
> lone exception amongst the basic infrastructure protocols and that is
> only by a few meetings.

The (multi-stage) process and its formalization are two different things.
Just look at the history of the development of the early protocols -- when
RFCs elicited Cs in the form of new RFCs.  Take SMTP, for example.  After
a couple versions of MTP (RFCs 772 and 780), it was supplanted by the
first SMTP (RFC 788) which evolved into STD 10, RFC 821.  Clearly there
were stages to the process, and the simplification corresponds roughly
to the removal of unused features expected at elevation to Draft Standard.

> I took a look at the current roster of Draft protocols, with a tiny
> number of exceptions that relate to essentialy obsolete protocols like
> X.400 and FDDI that hang on in a few places I can't see why they should
> not all be recognized as standards now.

And yet they haven't been.  Which is why I think we need to hear from the
IESG specifically why the advancement process in 2026 isn't being followed.
Has the IESG shot itself in the foot by prematurely disbanding WGs, or by
failing to charter them to do the work necessary for advancement?  Is there
some other resource shortfall?  Is there some procedural snag?  Is it
because bringing Draft Standards up to date would entail so many changes
(boilerplate, etc.) that they would have to be reset to Proposed?

> I don't think something has to necessarily be widely used to recognize
> it as a standard. The real issue is whether the document and protocol
> are well defined and stable or liable to change.

Like Archie and Gopher?
 
> HTTP may or may not continue to be widely used in 20 years time. What is
> certain however is that if there is something called HTTP/1.1 it will
> look like the one in the document.

Agreed, yet RFC 2616 will have been stuck at Draft for six years as of
next month.

> Again, the IETF standards track NEVER produced IP, the exact reverse is
> the case.

The multi-stage process did produce standards in widespread use.

More to the point, the original claim, viz. "the Internet runs mainly on
Proposed Standards", still hasn't been substantiated.  Even if you ignore
the same *type* of process, there is no way that IP is a mere "Proposed
Standard".
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html