At 1:12 PM -0400 6/21/10, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On 2010-06-20 10:41, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 6/20/2010 11:53 AM, SM wrote:
The reader will note that neither implementation nor operational
experience is required. In practice, the IESG does "require
implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed
Well, they do not /always/ require it.
That said, the fact that they often do and that we've lived with the reality
of that for a long time could make it interesting to simplify things
1. Have the current requirements for Draft be the entry-level requirement
for a standard -- do away with Proposed, not Draft.
2. Have a clear demonstration of industry acceptance (deployment and use)
be the criterion for "Internet Standard" (ie, Full.)
Having two interoperable implementations required for /all/ new
specifications takes care of two interesting questions.
a. Whether the specification can be at all understood.
b. Whether there is any meaningful industry motivation to
care about the work.
With these two questions satisfied, the nature of challenges against
standardization might tend to be more pragmatic than theoretical.
I strongly support this approach. The main drawback of this would be that a
document would sometimes need to exist for longer as an I-D while
implementations are developed, but balancing that is the fact that those
implementations would then inform the first RFC version rather than some
subsequent update, and it would be harder to get an RFC published for
something no one is really going to build.
It would only be harder to get a standards track RFC published for something no
one is really going to build: there will still be Experimental and
Such a change would put an new and interesting set of pressures on WGs, and on
individuals who go through the individual submission process for standards
track. It is well worth considering.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
Ietf mailing list