[asterisk-dev] iax2 rfc

[lconroy]

Hi Roy, Folks,
  You *are* kidding, right?

For a start, Standards Track documents are a great deal more work  
than Informational.
Informational RFCs specify the way a protocol works, and are less  
prone to tinkering
by IETF people who consider the protocol needs improving. You could  
well end up with
a Proposed Standard that is unlike anything implemented out there,  
which is NOT what
anyone wants, IMHO.

Ed has put in a *lot* of work to specify IAX in terms that the IETF  
will understand.
Hats off to him! Pushing it to Standards Track would be exactly what  
you don't want
- describing some other protocol, a couple of years down the line.

Also, IETF stated (way back in August '97) that it would NOT work on  
telephony
protocols, as H.323 existed already - I was there (and managed not to  
laugh).
You might think that SIP/SDP/RTP had become that, but strictly these  
are not just
for telephony or voice or even fax. There are a whole bunch of  
carbuncles that have
been tagged on to allow folk to do all sorts of bell-headed things,  
but the core
protocols are not focussed on telephony.

Even getting IETF protocol standardisation work started would be  
difficult, and
basing this on IAX is not going to help. Informational is exactly  
what you want
- a [rigourous] description of an existing protocol..

all the best,
  Lawrence Conroy
(who has been through the joys of both tracks :)

On 19 Aug 2006, at 17:55, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>> The draft will certainly be renewed;  It has gone through the  
>> review process and is
>> waiting approval.    (however, IAX will not be a standards track  
>> RFC.)
>
> What is the reason it won't be standards track?
>
> roy