[fwd] Re: [dow1-2tf] FW: RFC 3981 on IRIS: The Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)Core Protocol (from: andy@hxr.us)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(Forwarding this to dow1-2tf since it doesn't seem to have made it
to the list so far.)

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.




----- Forwarded message from Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx> -----

From: Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx>
To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 08:06:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] FW: RFC 3981 on IRIS: The Internet Registry Information 
Service (IRIS)Core Protocol
X-Spam-Level: 


On Jan 7, 2005, at 5:52 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>That's not the case.
>
>IRIS has been published as a standards track RFC. This RFC is in the
>entry-level "proposed standard" state, i.e., at the lowest maturity
>level that a "standards track" protocol can have.  The next maturity
>level will be "draft standard" (which requires two independent
>interoperable implementations); only after further experience has
>been gathered with the protocol, CRISP can become a formal Internet
>standard.
>

Let's be careful how this issue is parsed.  To not call IRIS an 
Internet standard because it has not reached "Internet Standard" status 
is to also say that HTTP is not an Internet standard or RFC 2821 
(modern SMTP) is not an Internet standard or EPP... I could go on and 
on with protocols that have RFC numbers but have not attained the 
"Internet Standard" status (typically called "full standard" to avoid 
confusion).

>Many proposed standards never make it to standard state.

It is more accurate to say "Most proposed standards never make it to 
standard state."  There is an IETF working group called NEWTRK working 
on how to restate what the IETF believes to be standards.

-andy



----- End forwarded message -----