W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1999

RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:21:18 -0800
Message-ID: <A10314B4D590E647A18A19A817ACEAB209A0F7@dobie.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: 'Patrik Fältström' <paf@swip.net>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, moore@cs.utk.edu, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Cc: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "Peter Ford (Exchange)" <peterf@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
I think there is a more fundamental problem, the bar for reaching proposed
standard for an APP draft must be different than the bar for a transport
draft.

Changing DNS is a serious thing that effects the fundamental architecture of
the Internet. As such it is something to be done very carefully.

Changing IP is even more scary and thus requires even more effort.

App protocols, these days at least, have a shelf life measured in minutes.
IDs are moving so quickly from first draft to deployed implementation that
the application community is forced to come up with its own rules as to when
something is done. Now a days a draft is considered fair game as soon as it
passes working group last call. The rest of the process is considered
irrelevant.

This is not a workable long term solution as the draft can still be changed
by the IESG even after surviving working group last call.

Hence app types need a faster system which, once consensus has been reached
in the working group, quickly ensures that the draft is frozen. There are no
"experimental" app protocols and no IETF/IESG last call. If all the members
of the working group buy off then you have something that will be
implemented. That is the process the apps world needs. That isn't the IETF
process. 

As I see it we have three choices:

1) Invent a new status above ID but below RFC that let's app developers know
they have a frozen draft they can develop off of but one that hasn't met all
the IETF quality bars.

2) Change the RFC process for APPs to lower the bar to working group
consensus.

3) Form a new, separate, standards group specifically for application
protocols.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@swip.net]
> Sent: Mon, December 06, 1999 7:22 PM
> To: Yaron Goland (Exchange); 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; Scott 
> Lawrence;
> moore@cs.utk.edu; discuss@apps.ietf.org
> Cc: Josh Cohen (Exchange); Peter Ford (Exchange)
> Subject: RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status? 
> 
> 
> --On 99-12-06 11.26 -0800 "Yaron Goland (Exchange)"
> <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > Maybe it's time that Apps leaves
> > the IETF and forms its own organization.
> 
> This has been discussed a number of times, and every time the 
> answer that
> comes back states that having meetings at the same time (i.e. 
> at the same
> IETF meetings) is a good thing. It has also been discussed whether the
> various areas should be meeting at different dates, and the 
> answer to that
> questions has also been the same. Take for example the MMMS 
> or iDNS BOF or
> the IMPP effort which all depend on interest from more areas 
> than APPS.
> 
> The problem we have in apps is that we have too many things 
> on the table,
> and you point that out in your mail. Too many things are 
> "almost done" and
> that take 100% of the energy we all have.
> 
> I hope that the ADs with help from wg's can clean the table 
> substantially
> this winter, but if things are not better at the winter -00 IETF, I am
> happy to discuss this problem again.
> 
>     Patrik
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 02:07:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:26 GMT