- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:21:10 -0400
- To: "James P. Salsman" <bovik@best.com>
- CC: Jim.Mathis@Motorola.com, ned.freed@innosoft.com, paf@cisco.com, discuss@apps.ietf.org, ietf-mmms@imc.org, ietf@ietf.org
Howdy,
"James P. Salsman" wrote:
> Proposed special document status and process for MMMS specifications:
> Recognizing that it may be impossible to achieve consensus on topics
> in which large and diverse corporate concerns have vested interests
> opposed to open standards, the MMMS working group will have a special
> goal to produce Internet-Drafts which will identified as "Frozen MMMS
> RFC-track Internet-Drafts." These documents might never become RFCs
I think this is a Bad Idea -- particularly in conjunction with:
> frozen documents. Developers may rely on such documents as static
> and vendors and customers will be encouraged to refer to them in their
> procurement process.
These documents would become de facto standards (although they won't
have had the standards-review) and they would break the paradigm
of Internet-Drafts (which is "don't implement").
If you want to get public documentation on how things are done,
it would be more suitable I think to go with traditional Informational
RFCs -- and you can label them as "Informal understanding of how to
do X", if you like.
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary...
... or was that the other way around?"
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 16 September 2000 16:05:29 UTC