Re: [re-ECN] "Is a standard required?"

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John Leslie

> 
>    Instead, we define standards so that customers can ask 
> their vendors for a feature which is well-enough-defined to 
> be implemented by the vendors with a high probability that it 
> will interoperate.

Yes (but this is not the only condition - that feature should also be in
answer to a real functional need or operational problem in the Internet,
and the solution should be implementable, deployable, and compatible
with the existing deployed technology) 

> It's quite normal for us to design standards that never see 
> implementation by multiple vendors.
> 

Is this true? Beyond going into the discussion of what is 'normal' I
would observe that an RFC that cannot prove the existence of two
independent implementations cannot be advanced from Proposed to Draft. 

>    I can understand how you might see that as wasteful and 
> want to change it, but I seriously advise that new IESG 
> members _not_ set out to change the way IETF operates.
> 

I do not think that the new IESG members are asking questions that were
not asked before. The IETF does not have infinite resources, this is
something that is not that new. 

Dan