In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEA8B(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
A "draft" is
what we have now. A "draft" is worked on, edited, and finally moves to
"Proposed Standard". A "Proposed Standard" moves to "Draft
Standard". It does not move to "draft" ordinarilly.
There is no code required at all at this point. We have multiple
independent implementations that provide proof of concept. The
creation of compliant versions is dependent on progress to
Proposed Standard.
While working code is not always required, that doesn't mean the IESG
will not require it.
I'm sure that many people have read RFC2026 at least once, but I
figured I'd snip out this section on what it takes to qualify for
an RFC starting on the standard-track.
4.1.1 Proposed Standard
The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
Standard". [...]
A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience
might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
before it advances.
Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
designation.
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet.
I think that MARID may well be considered to have a "significant
operational impact on the Internet", and thus the IESG may require
"implementation and/or operational experience". At a minimum, our RFCs
will need to be "well-understood". While we may not need a full-blown
implementation, I personally wouldn't consider an algorithm to be
"well-understood" if there at least some dry runs on real data from
multiple sources.
While there have been a couple of dry runs by both Andy Newton and
Mark Lentczner, they were both tiny (personal mail boxes). They also
both showed that the PRA may well have a far greater error rate than
SPF-classic.
-wayne