Re: netwrk stuff

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
> By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit, such
> as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the work cannot
> gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants
> moving to Historic.

Fully disagree. If there is "some implementation but not enough" it 
should remain "proposed". Otherwise, vendors will hesitate to 
implement protocols that might eventually make them look silly ("why 
does the box include the FrobzBaz protocol when everyone knows that 
it is Historic?").

This leads to two designations: Proposed and Full. An implementer 
looking at a Proposed standard would assess how long it has been out 
and which other implementers have put it in competing products to 
assess whether they want to put it in theirs. Things labelled Full 
standard would probably be put in by default.

Vendors really do care about this. They don't want to look bad for 
including the "wrong" features, and they don't want to look bad for 
not including popular ones. I regularly get calls from VPNC members 
asking about whether or not they should implement various standards, 
both in the positive sense ("is it worth paying an OEM to include 
this?") and in the negative sense ("will we look silly if we include 
this, even though it is in the standard?").

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf