[apps-discuss] Publication of NNTP extensions on the Standards Tracks (fwd)

William F. Maton Sotomayor wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
Tue Jun 15 19:27:16 UTC 2010


FYI

wfms

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:20:58 -0700
From: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk at cloudmark.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
Cc: "Apps-Discuss at ietf.org" <Apps-Discuss at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Publication of NNTP extensions on the Standards
     Tracks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melnikov at isode.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:11 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: Apps-Discuss at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Publication of NNTP extensions on the Standards Tracks
>
> 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.

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.
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss



More information about the inn-workers mailing list