Subject: Re: Moving forward on IETF problems

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:45:35 -0400

>  Date: 2005-05-10 07:44
>  From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>

> The value in the DS label is surely the knowledge 
> that an interop report has been presented and accepted.

The report is (or should be) mere mechanism for verifying the process
which provides the true value -- elimination of unused provisions and
ensuring full interoperability.

> And that's 
> why I conceded that I could live with a two-stage process
> (although I still think one stage plus interop reports would
> be just fine).
> 
>     Brian (speaking only for myself)

As I pointed out on NEWTRK, merely saying "feature X isn't widely
supported" is very different from removal of feature X from the
specification, particularly w.r.t. any latent security vulnerabilities
in X.

Beyond DS, there is additional value to full Standards, among other
things in ensuring that widespread deployment doesn't interfere with
other Internet operations.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf