[saag] Re: [rfc-i] RFCs vs Standards

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 4:56 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Eric,
> On 11.12.2024 13:26, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:47 PM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> And this is where we run into problems, because the moment you change
>> that boiler plate, you will devalue the RFC series and create support and
>> interoperability problems as people end up implementing different versions
>> of a specification. And to be clear, IANA is the LEAST of our problems.
>> The IETF needs a way to have not-ready-for-prime-time DRAFT work without
>> fear ofcreating a mess.
>>
> I think this assumes facts not in evidence.
>
> If you are asking for evidence that we have trained the industry to
> believe that drafts are temporary, you should work in or near a commercial
> organization who answers RFPs.  I've seen my share, and they rarely include
> internet-drafts.  If you are asking for evidence that this sort of training
> would break down, that would be asking for evidence of an event that has
> not yet occurred because the boiler plate has largely stated the draft
> nature of drafts from the beginning.
>
Indeed. So we are just left with our respective opinions.

I reiterate: a draft can be stable where a specification is not.
>
You can reiterate it, but it's only true for a specific meaning of "draft".
Draft *versions* are in fact stable, which is why we have been able to do
Internet scale deployments based on them.

-Ekr