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

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

From: <[e-mail]>
>
> 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

I am not wedded to "what standards?" either, but I'm at least engaged to the 
idea that we might be able to figure out what a standards-track protocol is, 
and tell someone else.

I do note that

- Not everyone immediately needs ISDs, but the people who do, need them, 
like, five years ago. Go to http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi 
and type in "rfc 3261" for an amusing object lesson.

- Jonathan Rosenberg has 16 other active I-Ds, but thought it was worth his 
while to put 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-hitchhikers-guide-00.txt 
together (and he's a pretty busy guy).

- http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/sip.html does not actually describe 
the mixed panic and amusement that broke out when the chairs showed a new 
charter milestone that included "moving SIP to Draft Standard". The 
consternation involved both (1) at least 2000 MUSTs in the SIP 
specifications, as counted by Robert Sparks, plus (2) no one actually 
knowing what SIP was ("we need something like the TCP roadmap for SIP").

- I would LOVE for it to be possible to implement SIP by reading a 
half-dozen RFCs. That would be an order of magnitude reduction in the 
current situation (even "core SIP" has more RFCs than that).

At this point, we seem to be headed back for yet another round of "is there 
really a problem?" discussions. "There really is a problem", probably not 
for everyone (it may be well-understood what SHIM6 is), but for enough 
people to justify moving forward on ISDs, independent of whether Newtrk does 
anything else or not.

We have been very conservative about RFC 3933 experiments involving the 
standards track. Perhaps there are a small number of protocols that need 
ISDs, and the rest do not. Given a choice between bootstrapping ISDs, 
solving a real problem, and looking for broader applicability, and another 
round of navel-gazing, should we consider moving forward with an ISD 
experiment?

Thanks,

Spencer 


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