[newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old Standards to be retired)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 17 December 2004 12:43 UTC
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (root@darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12898 for <newtrk-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:43:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBHCGaOh003764; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 04:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iBHCGa1Q003759; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 04:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBHCGYR0003738 for <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 04:16:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8A161C00; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:16:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23954-02; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:16:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.145] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216636226E; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:16:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:16:25 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: erosen@cisco.com
Cc: "'newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu'" <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old Standards to be retired)
Message-ID: <B3A4072D7362DE32135837DD@gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <200412161900.iBGJ0DHS004740@rtp-core-1.cisco.com>
References: <200412161900.iBGJ0DHS004740@rtp-core-1.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Sender: owner-newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Since the IETF list is obviously in rehash-of-WG-discussion mode today, I thought I'd contribute to the flamage, and rehash the logic behind the list of old standards that arrived in your inboxes a few days ago..... Let's look back on what the IETF has decided previously. In 1994, the IETF community resolved to make the following procedure into "IETF law" through RFC 1602: When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet Standard level but has remained at the same status level for twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of the standardization effort responsible for that specification. Following each such review, the IESG shall approve termination or continuation of the development. This decision shall be communicated to the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list, to allow the Internet community an opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. In 1996, through RFC 2026, it reconfirmed that decision. In 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, various people cricticized the IESG for not following the process as written; the standard answer was "this is not the most important thing for the IESG to be doing". And that's still true. In March 2004, having gone through yet another of those "debates", I decided to see if I could write down some words on how this COULD be done without being an undue burden on the IESG. I recruited Eliot Lear to lead the effort, and together we created what's currently draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00. At the NEWTRK WG meeting in San Diego in August, I explained my motivation for pursuing this: This is the lightest-way process for doing what RFC 2026 mandates that I have been able to imagine. Now, we should either execute on that process, OR STOP TALKING ABOUT MOVING TO HISTORIC. The argument that Bob Braden is making, and you seem to be making - that we should not move "crufty" things to Historic at all - is a rational argument. But in that case, WE SHOULD UPDATE RFC 2026 TO SAY EXACTLY THAT. <flame> HAVING THE IETF CONTINUE TO SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER IS NOT A GOOD THING FOR THE INTERNET. </flame> OK, finished shouting. Eric and Bob: the NEWTRK list is waiting for your contribution on the principle involved, and your internet-draft suggesting the change to RFC 2026 to get rules aligned with reality. It's possible that that contribution will overturn the consensus of the WG to run this experiment. But in the meantime - please get out of the way and let us who want to try run the experiment and evaluate the result. Harald --On torsdag, desember 16, 2004 14:00:13 -0500 Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> wrote: > > I see this exercise has already reached the point of absurdity. > > How can it possibly be worth anyone's time to look at each telnet option > and determine whether it is deployed? What possible purpose could be > achieved by changing the standards status of some telnet option? Is > there some chance that someone is going to implement one of these by > mistake somehow? > > A similar comment applies to the FDDI MIB. Are we trying to make sure > that no one implements that MIB by mistake? Or that no one implements > FDDI by mistake, just because he thinks there's an IETF standard about > it? > > Let me echo Bob Braden's "if it's not broken, why break it?" query. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > . newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Bob Braden
- [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Eliot Lear
- [newtrk] Re: [Old-standards] Re: List of Old Stan… Spencer Dawkins
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired James M. Polk
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [newtrk] Re: [Old-standards] Re: List of Old … Brian E Carpenter
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Brian E Carpenter
- [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of Old … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of … Keith Moore
- Re: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of … Brian E Carpenter
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Eliot Lear
- Re: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of … Alistair.Urie
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Carsten Bormann
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Carsten Bormann
- [newtrk] Re: [Old-standards] Re: List of Old Stan… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [newtrk] Re: [Old-standards] Re: List of Old … Scott W Brim
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Bob Braden
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired George Swallow
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Bob Braden
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Carsten Bormann
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Eric Rosen
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Eliot Lear
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Pekka Savola
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired William Allen Simpson
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Eric Rosen
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Bill Fenner
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… John C Klensin
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired stanislav shalunov
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Bill Fenner
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired John C Klensin
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Pekka Savola
- Re: [Old-standards] Re: [newtrk] List of Old Stan… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Eliot Lear
- Re: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [Old-standards] Re: [newtrk] List of Old Stan… Pekka Savola
- Re: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Old-standards] Re: [newtrk] List of Old Stan… Carsten Bormann
- Higher level NEWTRK argument (Re: [Old-standards]… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- [newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old Stand… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- RE: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Eric Rosen
- [newtrk] Historic (Re: List of Old Standards to b… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… John C Klensin
- Re: [newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… John C Klensin
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired John C Klensin
- RE: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Process issue (was Re: [newtrk] Genuine public co… Alistair.Urie
- Re: [Old-standards] Re: [newtrk] List of Old Stan… William Allen Simpson
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired William Allen Simpson
- [newtrk] Re: Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- [newtrk] Re: Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… William Allen Simpson
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired William Allen Simpson
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [newtrk] Re: Historic (Re: List of Old Standards … William Allen Simpson
- Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired Keith Moore
- Re: [newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… Scott W Brim
- Re: [newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… Eliot Lear
- [newtrk] Re: Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… John C Klensin
- [newtrk] Re: Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… William Allen Simpson
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Bob Braden
- [newtrk] Re: Why old-standards (Re: List of Old S… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be reti… Eliot Lear
- [newtrk] Re: List of Old Standards to be retired Jeffrey Altman