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

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [John Leslie wrote:]
>> 
>> 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) 

   True... and WGs are quite properly charged to meet those criteria.

> > 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. 

   As we both know, the percentage of RFCs that progress from Proposed
to Draft has been minuscule.

>> 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.

   I have no objection to asking such questions (though I have some
reservations about posing such questions to only an off-list audience).
I meant only to suggest that requiring "satisfactory" answers to
questions about deployment before chartering a WG strikes me as a
change from historical practice.

> The IETF does not have infinite resources, this is something that is
> not that new. 

   I well understand that watching WGs drag on for years without
producing something "implementable, deployable, and compatible with
the existing deployed technology" is discouraging.

   But I would urge you (and all IESG members) not to insist that
it be accomplished _before_ chartering the WG.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>