Telnet Environment Option appeal
KLENSIN@infoods.unu.edu Mon, 25 October 1993 18:48 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05345; 25 Oct 93 14:48 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05341; 25 Oct 93 14:48 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18794; 25 Oct 93 14:48 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05334; 25 Oct 93 14:47 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05330; 25 Oct 93 14:47 EDT
Received: from INFOODS.MIT.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18773; 25 Oct 93 14:47 EDT
Received: from INFOODS.UNU.EDU by INFOODS.UNU.EDU (PMDF V4.2-13 #2603) id <01H4J77VTZN4000PC2@INFOODS.UNU.EDU>; Mon, 25 Oct 1993 14:37:35 EDT
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 14:37:34 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: KLENSIN@infoods.unu.edu
Subject: Telnet Environment Option appeal
To: Marjo Mercado <marjo@hpindsy.cup.hp.com>
Cc: Sun-Kwan_Kimn@hp6600.desk.hp.com, telnet-ietf@cray.com, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-id: <01H4J77WF5LG000PC2@INFOODS.UNU.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: iesg@cnri.reston.va.us
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Marjo, This note is intended to summarize actions and close the loop on the HP protest about the Telnet WG's choices about the handling of the environment option. I've waited to send it until we had the final form of the WG's revised proposal in hand and I could again review everything that led up to it. The essence of your original protest was that, in proposing to replace RFC 1408, a Proposed Standard on the Telnet Environment Option, with a revision that "corrected" some values that were improperly transcribed into 1408 from a reference implementation, the WG was acting improperly and that, since HP (and possibly others) had an installed base that followed 1408 as specified, preference should be given to the literal text of 1408, rather than what it was intended to mean. You also suggested that it would set a very bad precedent for IETF to be recognizing "reference implementations" in preference to published RFCs and that more clarification of what implementors were expected to do at different maturity levels in the standards process would be in order. There is no disagreement about these last two points, although the delicate balance between the advantages of early implementations and avoiding deployment of things that might change has proven difficult to capture in specific text. The "reference implementation" versus "published RFC" issue really does not apply in this case. It would with a full standard, and, except in unusual circumstances, with a draft standard. But proposed standards exist precisely so that implementation experience can be gained and flaws in the specification identified and corrected. As we have discussed, if an obviously severe problem had been identified, there would be enthusiasm, presumably from HP as well as everyone else, for fixing it, even if the fix were incompatible. What makes this case difficult is the essential triviality of the problem. Whether a problem is trivial or significant in its impact and consequences, the Area Directors and IESG will not second-guess a working group's technical conclusions at the Proposed Standard level, at least as long as those conclusions are a priori reasonable. The integrity of the IETF process seems to rest on that principle, and well-meaning attempts to violate it by IESG or IAB have led to serious problems. Technical decisions don't come top-down. What the Areas and IESG can, and must, do is to try to guarantee that all significant viewpoints have been heard from and all significant technical alternatives have been given reasonable consideration. In this particular instance, that might or might not have been the case prior to your protest, but it is certainly the case today. There was also no disagreement that the error in RFC 1408 created a mess, and that installed base would be negatively impacted whether your preferred solution (carrying the RFC 1408 definitions into the new version) or the WG's original proposal (using the intended definitions in the new version) was adopted. Since the two approaches do not interoperate without some special and careful coding, it was clear that the "new version" could not be published as a Draft Standard, regardless of the choice that was made. We asked that the WG reconsider the situation, considering all possible options. We advised the WG that it would probably be architecturally unwise to carry an approach into a final standard that would require a kludge or heuristic code of all implementations for all time, even if such a solution might be attractive, as an option, for vendors interested in maximum interoperability with older implementations. After lengthy discussion, both in Amsterdam and on its mailing list, the WG concluded that the best solution for the long-term was to deprecate the old environment option and to establish a new one, with a new code and to publish guidelines for interoperation with the older form (whether implemented according to strict reading of RFC 1408 or according to the reference implementation). The discussions clearly demonstrate careful consideration of all points of view and a rational balancing of long-term and short-term considerations. Consequently, I have accepted a request from the WG to propose the current environment option text (draft-ietf-telnet-envmnt-option-02.txt) to IESG as a Proposed Standard, replacing RFC 1408 and to propose the interoperability guidelines (draft-ietf-telnet-interoperability-00.txt) for publication as a WG-produced Informational RFC. I consider that this closes the original protest. If you disagree, you have the right to appeal to the full IESG by sending a note to its chair, Phill Gross (pgross@ans.net) with copies to the IESG at iesg@cnri.reston.va.us. Sincerely, John C. Klensin Co-Area Director for Applications
- Telnet Environment Option appeal KLENSIN