Subject: RE: [newtrk] guestion 5 for newtrk (was: Re: question four for newtrk)

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:36:57 -0700

> - all of our stable documents are lumped into the RFC category
> - from a distance (e.g. a citation) any RFC number looks as
"legitimate"
>   or "standard" as any other.

Are we sure that this actually is a problem? What matters most, the
actual text, or the process that produced it? If we believe that
specifications ought to stand on their own, then we should not be overly
concerned. If a WG produces a compelling spec, that spec will win in the
market. If a WG produces a convoluted camel and the market prefers an
alternative document, so be it, it probably is the best outcome...

-- Christian Huitema

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:46:18 -0600 (MDT)

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> But maybe if non-IETF documents are still "RFCs", I believe that our
> efforts to distinguish between non-IETF documents and IETF documents
> are semi-doomed...

I have to agree.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Christian Huitema wrote:

> >   "legitimate" or "standard" as any other.
>
> actual text, or the process that produced it?

Neither, in this context. It is the label that often (usually?)
matters most for the market. "Details" like process or text are often
secondary.

> If we believe that specifications ought to stand on their own, then
> we should not be overly concerned. If a WG produces a compelling
> spec, that spec will win in the market. If a WG produces a
> convoluted camel and the market prefers an alternative document, so
> be it, it probably is the best outcome...

The above assertion assumes that (a) the timing of specification
release is of no importance and (b) market forces select best
specification (from long-term IETF/Internet point of view). Each of
those assumptions is often false, in my experience. It is often too
late or otherwise impossible for a compelling spec to defeat a
convoluted camel (regardless of which one was produced by IETF).

Alex.
.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:32:24 -0400

> alternative document, so be it, it probably is the best outcome...

I do not believe that specifications stand on their own.   A 
specification that looks reasonable from many readers' points-of-view 
may actually have serious limitations.

Making alternative final-form specifications available in a similar 
format does little to encourage the market to pick a good spec.  The 
best it can do is to invite comparisons between the alternatives for 
those readers who are sufficiently motivated.  The worst it can do is 
to invite confusion.

.