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

[Darrell Heng <hkheng@usa.net>]

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> 
> > 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
pls remove me from your mass mailing list, thanks. i did not subscribe
to this column  in the first place.


thanks.


regards,
heng