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

RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Josh Cohen (Exchange) <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:49:17 -0800
Message-ID: <BFF90FB6CF66D111BF4F0000F840DB850E75DAB0@LASSIE>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, 'Patrik Fältström' <paf@swip.net>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, 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>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 6:34 PM
> To: Yaron Goland (Exchange); 'Patrik Fältström'; Yaron Goland
> (Exchange); Scott Lawrence; moore@cs.utk.edu; discuss@apps.ietf.org
> Cc: Josh Cohen (Exchange); Peter Ford (Exchange)
> Subject: RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status? 
First, Im not in favor of a separate body, yet.
I beleive that there can be progress made in IETF process
to allow APPS what it needs..

> >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.
> We've got one. It's called EXPERIMENTAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, its no good if a standards track document cant reference it.
Following that, one might say then that effort should be experimental
as well.  This isnt a bad thing, necessarily.  I think there is
just a stigma about experimental that prevents it from being
appealing to the community.
It would help if the IAB could paint a nicer picture of it,
perhaps as "short term standard".   Whatever it is, we need
to imply that the standard in question ( experimental) has
the agreement of the interested vendors/parties, is likely
to proceed to "standards track", and is something that
the community should invest in.   Today, the common view 
of experimental, IMHO, is "this is never going to go anywhere,
but you can go play with this freak of nature of you want, just
dont have any expectations of it being around in the future".

Maybe all APPS standards should have experimental, or an
equivalent, as a necessary first step in getting to standards
track proposed.
> >2) Change the RFC process for APPs to lower the bar to working group 
> >consensus.
> That would mean starting to ship Proposed Standard RFCs that 
> a significant 
> portion of a WG objects to. Do you really think that's good?
Maybe in the early stages it would be wise to have the IETF
make two standards for a given area, perhaps as "quasi-experimental".
This way the market can decide, and when it does, it wont be
a choice of "the IETF approved standard, or the other one".
People should build products, standards, and such due to
the usefulness and market acceptability of a protocol, not
because one is "IETF sanctioned".

> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 04:38:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:08:06 UTC