Subject: Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 09:07:35 -0400

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    >> IP over foo is not exactly packet science, that's why.

    > nor is it standards-track material.

Anything that more than two "real user" entities are going to want to use,
and *might want to inter-operate*, is probably standards-track material.

About the only reason not to do it would be if it was decided that the
design chosen was technologically flawed. However, I think NAT should have
taught the IETF (as bridges taught me) that sometimes what seems
technologically flawed is in fact just what the market needs and wants -
usually for some reason one hasn't sufficiently appreciated.

So I would generally err very much on the side of caution, and stay with the
standard in the first paragraph. (Even if it does sound like an April 1
escapee...)

	Noel

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 09:45:45 -0400

> and *might want to inter-operate*, is probably standards-track material.

I disagree, and that's not the metric that has traditionally been applied. 
A protocol that doesn't work over the Internet in general, but which only
works in limited environments and for limited groups of users, has not
generally considered suitable for IETF standardization, and this is entirely
appropriate.  IETF's endorsement of a protocol is taken to mean that the
protocol has broad applicability.  IETF doesn't have the resources to 
standardize every protocol that some small group of people might want to use.
Nor would it really serve IETF's purposes for it to do so.  Small groups
of people can agree among themselves how to solve a problem, and they don't
need to require that their solutions be universally applicable; it's only
when you have large numbers of users that you need to impose the criteria
that IETF expects for standards.

> usually for some reason one hasn't sufficiently appreciated.

I agree that the existence of NAT should have helped us recognize legitimate
needs and wants, but that doesn't argue for standardizing NAT either.

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:46:51 -0400

At 5/24/2003:09:07 AM, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:

Hi Noel,

>and *might want to inter-operate*, is probably standards-track material.

Wow!  I pity the poor IESG members who would have to live with that
policy!

With all due respect, that has got to be one of the most non-scalable
concepts I've ever seen proposed...not to mention its many other counter-
productive qualities as identified already by Keith (with whom I concur
on this).

Cheers,

BobN