Subject: INFO: FW: Implementation vs. the Standard

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:26:05 -0500

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MAIL OK.  go-to-v6ops.c :--)
/jim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Bound, Jim
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:19 AM
To: Pekka Savola; Tony Hain
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Implementation vs. the Standard

It is important for us to separate implementation choice vs. the
standard.  The onlink and v6bydefault discussions are mostly a focus on
if you do this with IPv6 and don't think about this other aspect you can
hurt yourself.   A discussion of whether a standard is useful for
networking is a different discussion.  Then there is the importance that
a standard does not create an interoperability problem.  The API issues
are not errors but could be operational issues.  Also the Base API is
Informational, and is standardized by the IEEE not the IETF as a note to
all.  At this point we don't even own that spec anymore.  That spec is
done and completed if we want additions it will have to go through IEEE
process too not just IETF process.  

There is nothing wrong with documenting issues for implementers in an
RFC and that work should be encouraged.  In that context I agree with
Pekka S.  But, for the IETF to tell vendors how they ship their products
for customers is simply inappropriate and vendors will not listen to the
IETF, hence this is not a good use of our precious mail time. In that
sense I agree with Tony 100%.

Discussion of operational issues with our standards and how they work
with implementation is a good discussion.  But should not be a priority
over the standards work we need to deliver as a working group.

So in addition to the recent and good request from Chairs and ADs to try
to hold back on email and think about the response and hit reply for
ones hot button (and at times it must be done for continuity and
defense) I would also add that topics which are standards we are working
on that are needed and on standards track receive priority mail
discussion. The Standards Track discussions are the ones that may help
improve time-to-market for the IETF to deliver their product/solutions
which are networking standards and the point of this body and forum.

This mail is not to tell anyone to do anything or stop doing anything
but a note and my .50 cents.  I also took IPv6 WG off this mail as I
don't want to get mail twice again.  I will send to IPv6 WG as courteous
that I did this but I feel this is mostly a v6ops discussion at this
point in time.

Sincerely,
/jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------