IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289B212F1A2 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=uyvB/YCZ; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=oHDcOgXC
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A6lZ8pdj7eJt for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D04130ECE for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.224.109.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w6C9DRkx018557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1531386819; x=1531473219; bh=GfHLJ42G2S9+GoLyTYDpdi/LUucdZnwjbB2SaJ68vF0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=uyvB/YCZTM19GkDttCLCuWMATSWLC8oDZUj/JI2AoBIoBhzrRLysI5hlJyhSMWOzT TX5UGMLHrVjlArBP6Fwxn3q7Ypk0JoNO0y2vyfw4QbbUa8RMkYO7rUwhVpj9c4M8SV ytCr85WyhsjorjBrVUUBvN7wroijGWhfL3jKhldc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1531386819; x=1531473219; i=@elandsys.com; bh=GfHLJ42G2S9+GoLyTYDpdi/LUucdZnwjbB2SaJ68vF0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=oHDcOgXCFSRv6WiwrzcuXdW4EKLYbmkxo7ICJHGbXvdArhJbxNon7HKa+M2rdGzY+ dYN2MIhLUQs79FtQZzhwhXsxDONf4/Ml76v6FIVT6L642ArcWbSw74UCgsDzoQMB0T WRImR2RSXkGisIDC2STx4onLX2UGtyn354cHrv5E=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180712014944.0b718b40@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:13:12 -0700
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>, rfcplusplus@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <618c78fa-c2c2-aa7d-f8e8-f0748609f438@joelhalpern.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBVC82qy0hbUbQKm=OsFPsaJUPndtVaxd782au6Qy0w6Q@mail.gmail.com> <a4b50286-5c54-e6cf-9087-7171030b7fca@juniper.net> <C9EBFF44-DB93-45E4-954D-2AC5E2F47D03@gmail.com> <20180710192810.GQ20282@mx4.yitter.info> <0e127473-902a-2421-6b5d-73f9e7f83286@juniper.net> <20180710204512.GT20282@mx4.yitter.info> <af1d2bc2-2027-0a4b-856a-35b35c386624@gmail.com> <3e8272be-50fb-113b-fd6f-a5850d668472@mozilla.com> <baa4f311ebe6f334ffd64b49f73a2231.squirrel@www.amsl.com> <aa7c626a-c34e-e38d-8762-ad53abac3630@mozilla.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20180711100739.0bc10fe0@elandnews.com> <0e28a2e9-d20d-5946-405a-e5c508ab590b@mozilla.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20180711152805.07d07338@elandnews.com> <35e8460f-7db7-98d7-7143-3aafff16b9fa@gmail.com> <CABkgnnXvjy2c7FkCDP58TkyXdtWKy_KmZwKCFLq+dJ1p3msWUA@mail.gmail.com> <618c78fa-c2c2-aa7d-f8e8-f0748609f438@joelhalpern.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/j7HdEdmXvZLxxIVtrhZuuUQrHyY>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:13:45 -0000

Hi Joel, Martin, Peter,
At 07:19 PM 11-07-2018, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>At least in the areas I work in, RFCs when published describe 
>protocols which have seen limited implementation or 
>deployment.  Even when we are revising widely deployed protocols, 
>the revisions or enhancements have usually experienced limtitd 
>implementation or deployment.  We like to have some experience (IDR 
>for example requires two implementations).  We rarely have large 
>numbers of vendors implementing, since most vendors wait for the 
>document to stabilize and be published as an RFC before they implement.
>
>So I am very confused by your text describing RFCs that "describe reality".

The conversation is getting back to what was known as (IETF) Proposed 
Standard.  The audience (re. Peter's comments} is vendors which have 
not participated in the review process as they are better placed to 
determine whether the specification can be clearly understood.  There 
is also the deployment angle, i.e. the practices are determined by 
the people running operations.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status