Re: warning suggestions for draft-bberry-pppoe-credit

Vernon Schryver writes:
> Let's be honest with ourselves.  If the difference between "Informational"
> and "Standards Track" were real, there would be no need to add the
> deprecating text to this proposal.  The intent is for the IETF to OK

Yes, I'm an implementor, and I have certainly noticed that many
(though not exactly _all_; I think that's a bit of hyperbole)
customers, users, and other implementors ignore the overly subtle
distinction between Standards Track and the rest.

I even agree that ditching Informational as a failed experiment would
likely work out for the best.

That doesn't imply that this is really the right forum to redesign the
IETF/IESG process.  As long as that process exists, we might as well
respect it as best we can.

I agree that many people will breeze right past the Informational
warning as well as any text (no matter how clear) indicating that the
document shouldn't be viewed by anyone ... ever.[1]  Just the same, as
long as publishing is going to happen no matter what we say here, I
think we're in a better place with the text than without.

Again, as an implementor, I like being able to say to a customer,
"gee, did you notice the warning message?  That's why I'm just not
going to put a high priority on fixing your bug.  Pony up some serious
cash or just go away."  ;-}

[1] Apologies to Trey Parker for stealing^Wborrowing that phrase.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

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