RE: Status of MARID WG?

The practical difference is not that important.

There are many RFCs that have reached draft standard status that have never
been deployed. There are many protocols that have never progressed beyond
experimental or informational that are real defacto standards.

It was abundantly clear than many in the group were working from a mental
model that went something like obtain IETF standards status, get deployed.
This is in practice only the way forward after a protocol is reasonably
mature. There is a high probability that the blogosphere will converge on
whatever ATOM decides, but the IETF could not have created the blogosphere
by simply ratifying an RFC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Gal
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:21 PM
> To: 'Harry Katz'; 'Dean Anderson'
> Cc: 'IETF MARID WG'
> Subject: RE: Status of MARID WG?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess technically since the drafts have the writers' names 
> rather than then working group name they are not implied to 
> be ietf WG documents. 
> 
> 
> -Tom
> 
> [email protected]  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harry Katz
> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:49 AM
> > To: Dean Anderson
> > Cc: IETF MARID WG
> > Subject: RE: Status of MARID WG?
> > 
> > 
> > To my knowledge, MARID has not started again.
> > 
> > I was just using the list to provide members with copies of
> > the specifications since they will not appear on the IETF web 
> > site until after the IETF 61 meeting. 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:31 PM
> > > To: Harry Katz
> > > Cc: IETF MARID WG
> > > Subject: Status of MARID WG?
> > > 
> > > Unless I missed something, the MARID working group is
> > shutdown, so it
> > > can no longer consider drafts. It was my understanding that
> > this list
> > > was kept active for discussion only.  Did the MARID WG
> > start up again?
> > > 
> > > 		--Dean
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Harry Katz wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The attached Sender ID specification,
> > > draft-lyon-senderid-pra-00, is
> > > > being submitted to the IETF as an experimental Internet
> > draft along
> > > > with draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 and draft-katz-submitter-00.
> > > > 
> > > > These three drafts capture discussions held during the last
> > > few weeks
> > > > of the MARID working group, as well as some subsequent
> > > feedback we've
> > > > received. In summary, we've made two key changes to the 
> Sender ID
> > > > Framework:
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> > > www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> > > 617 344 9000   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>