Subject: RE: pausable explanation for the Document Series

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:47:38 +0300

Hi Pekka,

> In real world, people implement the protocols for pilot/test purposes in 
> any case.  This can be done when the I-D has reached reasonable level of 
> stability.

Except when the IETF is not timely.  In a number of cases, people fail
to update implementations to protocols that are long lived because
they prefer to wait until the protocol is nearly complete.  I have this
comment from many people (from different organizations) for a number
of protocols such as MIPv6 and Diameter, for example.  Without making much
effort, I could find a bunch of other examples.

John

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:07:36 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
> Except when the IETF is not timely.

Uhh..

> In a number of cases, people fail

There are a few issues here:
 1) I don't know what you see as a problem here: IETF not finishing the 
spec quickly, or people failing to test it in a timely fashion?

 2) you use the word "update", implying that implementation experience is 
updated only a couple of times during the spec cycle; IMHO, if people have 
already -once- tested an implementation and provided feedback, I think 
that's already a very good success.  A problem of course comes when there 
are major changes in the protocol and you'd want folks to test it again 
and again provide feedback.

IMO, 2) should only be a problem when the document is deemed "ready" 
prematurely (and implemented), but is later pushed back and completely 
redesigned (e.g. MIPv6).  But this is an issue *already* that needs some 
serious attention, ie. preventing people from declaring protocol "ready" 
when it isn't (by e.g. cross-area reviews etc.).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings