On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > >> * The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which >>>>> that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in >>>>> that they >>>>> set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring >>>>> failure. >>>>> >>>> >>> I think you're going to need substantially more explanation (and >>> perhaps some data) to make a convincing case that RFC 6686 needs to be >>> reconsidered, thereby affecting this last call. The above states a >>> conclusion, but provides no data or explanation. I don't know how to >>> evaluation this. >>> >> >> Of course, I meant, "I don't know how to *evaluate* this." >> > > > From earlier exchanges about this concern, the assertion that I recall is > that 7 years is not long enough, to determine whether a feature will be > adopted. That is, failure to gain deployment traction after 7 years from > the time of publication should not be taken as a sufficient waiting period. > > I do not recall anyone (else) showing support for that view, but certainly > not any substantial constituency. > > Moreover: What is the premise for seven years being "not long enough"? And what does constitute "long enough"? And upon what is that last answer based? It would be wonderful if the boundaries for this test were written down somewhere, so that we would've had that information when we did the research for RFC6686. -MSK
