Subject: what's a standards track control?

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:34:28 -0800

What does it mean for an RFC that defines an LDAP control to be Standards 
Track?  Since it clearly isn't a requirement that all LDAP Servers to 
implement the control, I wonder what the difference is between a "Standards 
Track" control and an "Informational Track" control.  If there is no 
difference, shouldn't all controls be Informational Track (or maybe 
Standards Track)?  Or maybe, all Standards Track controls should be 
mandatory to implement, once the RFC reaches a Standard status.  Any thoughts?

==============================================
Bruce Greenblatt, Ph. D.
Directory Tools and Application Services, Inc.
http://www.directory-applications.com
See my new Book on Internet Directories: 
http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/ptr_0139744525.html

---

From: Mark Wahl <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 16:22:47 -0600

Bruce Greenblatt wrote:
> Track" control and an "Informational Track" control.  

RFC 2026 defines the difference between standards track and informational and
experimental.

Consider the Host Requirements RFC.  It is not a requirement that EVERY 
Internet host implement SMTP to be part of the Internet.  However SMTP is 
a Standard-track specification. Similarly, there are extensions to SMTP which
are not required to be implemented by EVERY MTA, but they are still standards
track.

> If there is no difference, shouldn't all controls be Informational Track (or
> maybe Standards Track)?  Or maybe, all Standards Track controls should be

Extensions are optional to implement by client or server, except when referenced
by an Applicability Statement or the core protocol definition.  This does not
keep them from being standards-track.

Mark Wahl
Sun Microsystems Inc.

---

From: Bruce Greenblatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:52:29 -0800

>RFC 2026 defines the difference between standards track and informational and

Yes, I know that.  It was after re-reading RFC 2026, that I posted my 
note.  As far as I can tell, there is no difference (yet) between a 
Standards Track control, and an Informational Track control.  I would 
recommend that unless there is substantial consensus that the control will 
be widely implemented, then controls should be Informational.  I think that 
Standards Track should be reserved for those controls which the IETF 
community feels are important for all servers to implement.  Before any 
more controls go forward, some guidance should be provided over what makes 
up difference between Experimental, Informational and Standards Track 
Controls...

>[snip]

They are now, but I can imagine that there may come a time that Servers 
will be required to implement a particular control (or some other extension).