RE: [newtrk] draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

John & Brian,
 
>> If we have designations like STD-0007-is for standards, is there any 
>> reason we shouldn't have designations like STD-0007-isd for 
>>associated descriptors (in cases where they exist)?
>
>That had not occurred to me, but, yes, this could be a way to 
>identify ISDs without requiring that they be available for 
>everything and so constitutes an implicit transition plan. 
>
>It might, however, sacrifice one of the original goals of the 
>ISD -- that it, and not the technical specifications it 
>normatively references, essentially become the standard.  
>Unless ISDs are generally available and pervasive, we lose the 
>main goal of John Loughney's "what standard" draft, i.e., very 
>clear identification of what makes up the standard and how the 
>pieces are related for procurement or implementation purposes. 
> That is (or was) also one of the key differences between the 
>ISD concept and Doug's SRD concept, at least as I understand 
>it: ISDs were expected to be normative and standard-defining, 
>which SRDs are relatively less formal reference pieces.  Which 
>is better can be argued either way, but the community needs to 
>decide.  And the type of reference pairing you suggest might 
>be a reasonable intermediate step either way.

I'm not wedded to my idea, but I do note that I had a lot of possitive
feedback about proposing some solution to actually defining what
a standard is, and I'm using standard in a broad sense.  I'm
hearing lots of complaints that implementing IETF protocols is becoming
quite difficult as implementaters have to rifle through a half a dozen
or so RFCs just to implement a protocol; or the IETF needs to 
charter a WG just so we can figure out what we mean.

YMMV,
John

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