RE: FW: [802.1] P802.1b/D0

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

What can we say in the future? Well, we can say, choose one of:
1) work it through a standards track WG
2) work it through a vendor consortium (AND THIS IS WHAT 
   I BELIEVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE)
3) do an experiment, and based on the result, choose #1 or #2,
   but don't even think of shipping a product with items
   defined in the "experimental branch"

And that's my opinion.

At 12:58 AM 12/24/2002 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>> > 
>> > Please note that if the definitions were under experimental and
>> > widely deployed, then there was either:
>> > 1) a break down in the standards process,
>> > 2) a vendor (or vendors) abusing the standards process, or
>> > 3) a little of both.
>> 
>> I think that (3) is what happened in the case of RFC 2786.
>> 
>Well, I think I told them back then that they could not be stds track
>And they were happy with experimental and so went ahead, defined it,
>implemented it and deployed it. And the deployment seems to be a
>great success... so what can we say?
>
>Bert
Regards,
/david t. perkins