Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic
Bob Stewart <bstewart@cisco.com> Thu, 30 July 1998 16:28 UTC
Delivery-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:28:14 -0400
Return-Path: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id MAA01275 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:28:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id MAA23176 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA28613; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zipper.cisco.com (zipper.cisco.com [171.69.63.31]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA28606; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:17:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tootsie.cisco.com (tootsie.cisco.com [171.69.128.44]) by zipper.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.2-SunOS.5.5.1.sun4/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA02654; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980730121542.00835100@zipper.cisco.com>
X-Sender: bstewart@zipper.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:15:42 -0400
To: "C. Adam Stolinski" <astolinski@worldnet.att.net>
From: Bob Stewart <bstewart@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic
Cc: Maria Greene <maria@xedia.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>, IETF UPS-MIB <ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <01bdbbd2$e3ec91a0$0d23480c@367140823worldnet.att.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 08:58 AM 7/30/98 -0700, C. Adam Stolinski wrote: >I had no idea that the IETF had become another "Alice in Wonderland" >spec group! Alice in Wonderland or not you don't appear to be aware of either the IETF standards process or the reasons behind it. >Is it about standards for implementation - or about busying ourselves >with "workgroups"??? It's about practical, working standards. >RFC 1628 works, is implemented by the entire UPS industry, and nobody >feels that it needs any changes. So, the IETF position is lets make it >obsolete, because there is no activity in the WG????? No, it's because there's no way to tell a standard that nobody cares about from one that's good unless the people who implement it take the time to say so. >There is a difference between "work" and "makework". Most of the people I know who are involved in Internet standards have more work than they can already handle. They're unlikely to make work just so they can apppear busy. >"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If you can't tell whether it's a viable standard, don't leave the illusion that it is. The work involved falls mostly on the working group chair, collecting implementation reports and writing a recommendation for advancement to Draft Standard, then repeating the effort to promote to full Internet Standard. The maxim you suggest should be invoked when people start suggesting significant changes to the standard itself. Bob
- Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Maria Greene
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic DRademac
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic C. Adam Stolinski
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic C. Adam Stolinski
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Bob Stewart
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Maria Greene
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Bob Stewart
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Maria Greene
- Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Bert Wijnen
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic case
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic C. Adam Stolinski