Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Russ White <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > snmp, netconf, yang, ...  heck even cops played in the space
> >
> > when your so-bgp, 15 years in the non-making, is mature as a document
> set,
> > with two or more implementations, i'll support it for standards track, no
> > problem.  i am not desperate enough to sabatoge the work of others to
> > move my work forward.
>
> Wow -- care to prove that accusation? Or have we gotten to the point in the
> IETF where personal accusations are a normal, everyday, substitute for
> actual discussion? This sort of personal abuse is what turns people away
> from the IETF, and reduces our value as a community. This is just wrong,
> Randy, and you know it is.
>
>
​<co-chair-hat>​

​to be very clear, I don't think that rock tossing helps here.. in fact I
think it's distracting to the question asked. (original question I mean)
let's not toss rocks please. (either of the 2 folk on To: nor other folk on
the -list)​
​</hat>​



> My point is simple -- the "no-one will use it" argument washes either way,
> so there needs to be some other grounds for deciding -- it's not a useful
> argument in either direction, honestly. Which throws us back to what
> "standards track" actually means. On that score, I'm not certain what the
> terms mean, so I asked for clarification on what the wording actually
> means.
>
>
​I don't know exactly either, but this from 2026:

"​   A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
   known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
   significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
   interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
   might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
   before it advances."

doesn't:
  1) say anything about the 'Final and Ultimate Solution'
  2) that other work can't be done

In fact the last sentence implies that more work could be done and that
it's NOT the final solution.

​let's please keep to the question. I do think discussion of this topic is
interesting, to me at least, and useful for the group. My personal opinion
is that PS seems like the right answer still, even after all these years.

-chris
<co-chair>​