RE: removing the milestones

Nelson, David writes:
> > What I did say was that it wasn't clear whether advancing the
> > documents (after so many years has passed) has any substantial value
> > for anyone consuming the documents.  I don't know that it does.
> 
> I think I understand what Glen is saying.  If implementing product based
> on documents at Proposed Standard is "good enough" for the industry, why
> would anyone ever expend the extra energy to advance a document to Draft
> Standard of Full Standard?

That's a fair question, and I don't have a good answer for it.

> I also understand that the IETF cannot compel work, so if there is
> currently no interest...

Yep.

Glen Zorn (gwz) writes:
> > What I did say was that it wasn't clear whether advancing the
> > documents (after so many years has passed) has any substantial
> value
> > for anyone consuming the documents.  I don't know that it does. 
> 
> Just to be fair, there seems to be a _very_ thin line between
> lacking "substantial value" and irrelevance.

Maybe.  I see the distinction as being whether anyone is willing to do
the (non-trivial) testing and (likely trivial) documentation required
to the work.  That's the substantive part.  It's not irrelevant; it's
just (apparently) not of enough value, or we'd have volunteers.

> > True.  And, as I said before, someone has to speak up to take
> > ownership of a document of interest, or it's just going to stay at
> > that maturity level forever.  
> 
> OK, what work needs to be done on the documents (aside from the MIBs
> which probably need editing to comply w/the new boilerplate, etc.)?

It looks like this:

   The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
   specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed.

Someone needs to show that two implementations (A) implement all of
the options and features and (B) that the options and features work
together.  I then get the task of 'documenting' these implementations
and citing them to the Area Director as a reason to advance the
standards process for that document.

I suspect that this is likely to be 'hard' for some cases, as some
implementation either don't have all the features or don't have any
way to control the features.  It may mean writing new drafts and
*removing* sections that either nobody implements, or not enough
people agree on.  I don't think it's zero effort.

-- 
James Carlson, IP Systems Group?               <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext