Subject: [apps-discuss] Publication of NNTP extensions on the Standards Tracks

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:02:37 +0100

Hi,
I hope this discussion doesn't degenerate into another flame war, like 
the discussion about FTP extensions.
I received a request to publish some NNTP extensions on Standards Track. 
The author claims (and I haven't checked that yet) that all extensions 
listed in the document are already implemented by at least one 
implementation. My question is: do people think I should be sponsoring 
any NNTP extensions on the Standards Tracks, should I sponsor them as 
Informational, or should I refuse to sponsor them?

Best Regards,
Alexey

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:07:39 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:apps-discuss-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [apps-discuss] Publication of NNTP extensions on the Standards
> Tracks
> 
> Hi,

Perhaps I'm missing some context to ask this question, so feel free to clobber me with some history if so...

NNTP is still in use, so what's the argument for not admitting them to standards track?

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:10:47 +0100

Hi Murray,

>NNTP is still in use, so what's the argument for not admitting them to standards track?
I am concerned about the number of users of the technology in general 
and experts/reviewers in particular. Some Area Directors have much 
higher bar for sponsoring documents than I do, yet I am still trying to 
decide if investing my AD time in NNTP is a good way of spending time.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:20:58 -0700

> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:11 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Publication of NNTP extensions on the Standards Tracks
> 

Unfortunately I don't think NNTP specs fit into another area.  And my understanding is that a non-experimental specification defining a protocol that traverses ADMD boundaries has to be standards track.

But the issue of the absence of expertise in the IETF to conduct meaningful reviews is an interesting one, as is the presumably dwindling user base.  Perhaps those are reasons to do them as informational or experimental until there's evidence of the opposite.

In my view, the risk here is precedent; forcing these to some other track sets the bar higher for other proposals in niche areas that might otherwise merit standards track processing.

Then again, perhaps that's an appropriate precedent to have.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:36:04 -0500

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't think NNTP specs fit into another area.  And my
> understanding is that a non-experimental specification defining a
> protocol that traverses ADMD boundaries has to be standards track.
> 
> But the issue of the absence of expertise in the IETF to conduct
> meaningful reviews is an interesting one, as is the presumably
> dwindling user base.  Perhaps those are reasons to do them as
> informational or experimental until there's evidence of the opposite.

+1

Over time these documents could trivially be promoted to the Standards
Track.  Consider this approach similar to a very, very long IETF Last
Call on these documents.

> In my view, the risk here is precedent; forcing these to some other
> track sets the bar higher for other proposals in niche areas that
> might otherwise merit standards track processing.
> 

I don't see why making these extensions Informational or Experimental
would set a precedent: how exactly would one AD's actions set a
precedent?  Unless it be an informal precedent, I don't see how.

One of the issues here is limited AD time relative to the importance of
the work in question, which surely will vary too much over time to be
worth setting a precedent over.  If the only issues were the lack of a
significant user base and the lack of expert reviewers, then you might
speak of precedent.  And even then, you could still say all similar
cases should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Nico
--