Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Note to the chairs:
This is an important topic for this WG, and I hope we will have time to
discuss it in Minneapolis.

Fernando Gont wrote:
> At 10:47 p.m. 07/11/2008, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> > P.S.: What was it called? "rough consensus and.... "?
>>
>> It's not "running code." either.
>>
>> We are not here to write documents that describe only what has been
>> implemented. We need to decide what the target is.
> 
> Again: Do you really expect anybody to change their stacks so that they
> become RFC1122-compliant in this respect???

I expect that, even if the IETF had a compliance process, the specs are
always out of sync with what is deployed, and represent what
implementations should try to achieve.

>> If you want merely to document "what is", that's a fine description for
>> a man page, but it doesn't provide utility in a standards body.
> 
> Well, I guess that depends whether you want the specs to be useful for
> implementers, or not. I just hope that some of the kernel hackers that
> send comments off-list post something in this respect on-list.

Implementers should design protocols to specs; they should design
applications to specs together with man pages and errata that discuss
where the two diverge.

IMO, the specs cannot constantly be downgraded to represent what is
implemented solely for that reason; downgrading can - and should - occur
if we, as a community, decide to change what we *want* the protocol to do.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEUEARECAAYFAkkV0ZkACgkQE5f5cImnZrtSKACgm9/OzQjGg0Wq51JSEtMmPhi2
lw8Al2iGit2ki5MvW/fLjRaq9LdWWts=
=RO/n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm