[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-enns-*.txt

On Monday, Feb 17, 2003, at 11:11 America/Montreal, Andy Bierman wrote:
I can't speak for other vendors, but the company I work for is very
interested in standardizing XMLCONF and has near-term plans for
implementing it. It it important that the specification be detailed
and precise enough to foster multi-vendor deployment and inter-operability.

The primary goal of the BOF (if it happens) will be to gauge
consensus on the path the IETF should take (e.g., do nothing,
start a WG to publish a PS, publish an Informational RFC without
any WG input). IMO, a standards-track document produced by a WG
offers the best chance of a high-quality specification supported
by lots of vendors and operators.
I think that trying to standardise *now* would yield a suboptimal
technical result, because we don't have enough hands-on implementation
and operations experience with any proposal yet.  Note that there is
ample recent evidence that the IETF is not good at this sort of
protocol design by committee, and also that the IETF is quite good
at protocol standardisation AFTER there has been ample practical
hands-on experience (both implementation and operations).

So nothing I said was objecting to *eventual* standardisation of
*something*.  Rather it was a suggestion that we ought to do some
implementing and get more operations experience before we PREMATURELY
try to standardise something.

Clearly your mileage varies from mine.

Ran


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>