Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC

[braden@ISI.EDU]

  *> 
  *> I have never had the intention of misusing the RFC publication
  *> process. I don't believe that I have ever misused the RFC publication
  *> process. But, let's not go through that discussion again, it is not likely
  *> to be productive ...
  *> 

The issue is not past actions, but possible future ones.
I am glad to hear that affirmation of intent.  Thank you.

  *> As for, "getting it right" vs. "getting it fast". The EMSD concepts
  *> have been in the works for nearly 4 years now. It is at a point 
  *> where its publication as an Informational RFC is the right thing.
  *> 
  *> 

Mohsen,

Despite the fact that it has been in progress for 4 years, it frankly
has some serious shortcomings as a protocol spec document.  As I
understand the situation, there is only one implementation from your
spec, and that is your company's.  Some in the IESG believe it does not
reach the threshold of quality for publication.  This is a judgment
call, and we are taking the view that it does.

If and when others try to construct interoperable implementations, they
will find the shortcomings of the document.  We are publishing it
present version as a record, hoping that in the future it will be
replaced by a better document.

I did a quick scan of your new document, and it did not appear to
me that you had used indentation effectively to make reading it
easier and clearer.

  *> 
  *> Hopefully, this publication is not the end of EMSD. It hopefully is a
  *> good way of starting on the road to "getting it right". 
  *> 
  *> 

Yes, exactly.

  *> 
  *> Parallel experimentation is the hallmark of the Internet.  
  *> 
  *> In this case, under these circumstances, Informational RFC
  *> publications of EMSD is the right vehicle for "getting it right".
  *> 
  *> 
  *> Fortunately, I think that you and I are on the same side of this
  *> perspective.
  *> 
  *> 
  *> Also, I want to close the loop with you about the need for "formal"
  *> submission of the revised draft to the RFC-Editor.  You already have
  *> the draft and my responses to your comments. There may be a procedural
  *> step there that I don't understand. If that is the case, please make
  *> it clear for me so that I am in no way slowing the progress of EMSD
  *> spec. towards its publication.
  *> 

For someone with your keen insight, you can be remarkably obtuse,
Mohsen.  However, we will take this comment as implying that you do
wish to submit the revised text as a new version.

Bob Braden

  *> 
  *> ...Mohsen.
  *>