Re: Revising full standards

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

Iain Calder wrote:
> their descendants.  For example, suppose a completely
> different protocol called IEP (Internet Email Protocol)
> arises in the future and, due to its vastly superior
> characteristics, becomes the dominant mail transport
> system.  SMTP would then become historic and IEP would
> need to be marked as the current standard.  Under these
> circumstances, an IETF-SMTP label proves a poor choice.

I think that that depends upon whether the <protocol> label defines a 
technology or a function. (This is in line with your later discourse, I 
believe.)  The word <protocol> is rather specific and says that the label 
applies to a particular technology.


> The usefulness of the STD-10 label, however, is unaffected.

Well, it's difficult to go below zero utility...

> So perhaps the generic, undated labels proposed above
> should be based on service descriptions rather than
> protocol names:
>
>   IETF-<service type>  and
>   IETF-<protocol>-<minimal-date>
> Eg:
>   IETF-EMAIL     = STD-10   -> IETF-SMTP-1986

I think that we ask for trouble if we use a service-oriented label.  It 
invites the conflict that you cite, as well as trying to encompass too much.

There are simply too many technologies that are covered by service terms, like 
"email" or "web" or "routing" or "transport".

In fact, particular technologies, like SMTP and SIP, have more than enough 
specification pieces, to warrant a particular label, IMO.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf