Re: Last Call: The Kitchen Sink Resource Record to Proposed

["William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>]

> From: Thomas Narten <narten@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
> My question is motivated by what happens long term, when the document
> proceeds further down the Standards track to Draft and Full
> Standard. Will the community ever want this protocol to be a full
> Internet Standard? If the answer is no, Standards Track seems totally
> inappropriate, and the IETF should not suggest otherwise by allowing
> it to enter the Standards Track in the first place. At the same time,
> I've had private conversations that suggest elevating documents to
> Proposed is not considered a big deal, and they can be nixed later if
> necessary. Thus, now is not the time to worry about these sorts of
> issues.
>
I don't think that this can be "Standards Track", because it would be
difficult if not impossible to "advance" it.  How do you test
interoperability with all possible formats?

What we did in PPP WG was to publish "Vendor Specific" extensions as an
"Informational" update to RFC-1661.  That way, we have a place to point
them, but the understanding that interoperability is not expected.

Funny thing, when the sink draft came out, I though it was a candidate
for the April 1 RFC.  Only later did I learn that it was serious.

It's reasonably written, and probably serves a purpose, so we should
advance it as something, but Standards Track seems inappropriate to me,
too.  Experimental?

WSimpson@UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson@MorningStar.com
    Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2