4 ms·
It's just nonsense. In the IETF's nomenclature, the label "Internet Standard" is used to refer to, and I quote: A specification for which significant implem
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
It's just nonsense. In the IETF's nomenclature, the label "Internet Standard" is used to refer to, and I quote:
A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community.
A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
See also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.3
Most internet standards are not "Internet Standard"s, as can be seen by the fact that IPv6 got assigned the standard number 86, and up until last year, IPv6 wasn't either, but it still was a perfectly fine and well-documented standard, and has been for a long time.
- pas 9y agoI'm sort of familiar with how sacred these standards are. I'm interested in what was the deciding factor, when IETF and which WG decided now we have enough (significant) successful operational experience. It's surprising, because IPv6 was set in stone at least around 2010 already, with a lot of experience (6bone ended in 2006, and so on), but on the hand general rollout is still very much ongoing.