RE: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi,

Since this group works on consensus, let me speak up and say I'm tired
of this discussion and would like to move on. I suspect that is the
consensus of the WG.

I favor following the IETF standards track process: 

When the WG consensus is that the specification is sufficiently clear
that people can implement the specs, then we should ask it to be
published as a Proposed Standard. If the people in this thread find
**specific** text or XSD or a combination of the two that they believe
are ambiguous, please point out the relevant faulty clause and propose
an alternative. The WG can decide whether to accept the proposed
revision or not, and we can move on. 

If we miss ambiguities in the spec after publishing as a PS, we should
fix the specs until we are satisfied we have resolved the ambiguities,
and then should recycle the specs at Proposed. Does this take time?
You betcha! That's why the IETF is respected as a standards body; they
don't just rush things out the door, they take the time to test it for
certain characteristics between stages in the process.

If you think the process is too slow, then I suggest spending FAR less
time in meta-discussions like this one, and focus on getting the specs
right in the first place. This WG is not chartered to redesign the
IETF process, or to impose new requirements on the existing IETF
process. If you don't like the IETF standards track process, then I
suggest you a) try to get the process changed by participating in the
newtrk WG (rather than raising the issues in this WG), or b) develop
your standards in other standards development organizations that are
more to your liking. 

Can we move on now?

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wes Hardaker
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:29 AM
> To: Andy Bierman
> Cc: sberl@cisco.com; 'McDonald, Ira'; 'Randy Presuhn'; 
> netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
> 
> 
> Andy> Echoing one last word on XSD vs. plaintext -- if the XSD
doesn't
> Andy> match the text then we fix whichever one is broken.
> 
> Nice in theory, but not nice in the IETF.
> 
> 1) the IETF standards track provides strict controls on 
> updating documents.
> 
> 2) updates never happen quickly.  The editor queue alone would be
too
>    long to change something.
> 
> One solution would be to host the XSD elsewhere and reference it,
but
> that's likely not acceptable from a standards process either.
> 
> -- 
> "In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the
soap,
>  and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
> 



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