On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 05:26:30PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/25/2013 4:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> >The point here is that protocols evolve all the time as we learn what's a
> >good idea and what isn't. You (and others) appear to be arguing that
> >protocols that get deployed and gain some level of acceptance, even as
> >"Experimental", are cast in stone and that the IETF must be forbidden from
> >modifying them unless there is explicit evidence that markets
> >will_immediately_ seize upon those modifications. I think that view is
> >broken.
>
>
> That's not the issue here. The issue here is a claim that merely by
> changing the normative text, a mechanism will get widely implemented, in
> spite of
>
> a) a long track-record of not getting implemented, and
>
> b) no incremental value to the implementer.
>
> That's not 'learn[ing] what's a good idea'.
>
> It's merely an attempt to manipulate through a documentation artifact.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
Changes in text does have an effect on implementation. See, (for example)
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) from about 1995
requires all Government Agencies to use industry consensus standards.
/bill
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.