Hi,
I was referring to section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026
"The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
specification. In cases in which one or more options or features
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed."
Roni Even
-----Original Message-----
From: SM [mailto:sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:37 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-
evaluation-05
Hi Roni,
At 23:37 17-05-10, Roni Even wrote:
I am not the expert on the requirements and it will be up to the IESG.
I
I don't know whether you are pondering what I'm pondering. Do you
mean that it is up to the IESG to define what the requirements are?
think that when you go to full standard you need to take out any
commands
and tags that are not used by interoperable products. If that was done
previously than it is OK but I suggest that you mention it to the
IESG.
Quoting Section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026:
"A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final
specification,
and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems
encountered."
According to Section 4.1.3 of RFC 2026, an Internet Standard, or what
is sometimes referred to as Full Standard, is a "specification for
which significant implementation and successful operational
experience has been obtained".
The YAM WG Charter states that:
"The working group does not intend to revise the actual protocols
in any way and will avoid document changes that might even
accidentally introduce protocol changes, destabilize a protocol,
or introduce semantic or syntactic changes."
"If an existing protocol implementation is conforming to the Draft
Standard version of the protocol specification, it must also be
conforming to the resulting Full Standard version."
the "success in the WG requires that there be a good-faith
commitment by both its participants and the IESG to avoid seeking
changes that (a) do not contribute in a substantial and substantive
way to the quality and comprehensibility of the specification, or
that (b) force a change to the existing protocol."
There is an expectation that the IESG is aware of the requirements
specified in RFC 2026 and what is written in the YAM WG Charter.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. If there are any false expectations, the IETF will have to
review the biological recombinant algorithmic intelligence nexus. :-)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf