I am away on vacation until Aug 8 and will get back to you after that. Thanks
Your message reads:
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (unverified [132.151.6.71]) by
hdflem01.fl.hostdepot.net
(Vircom SMTPRS 4.1.361.21) with ESMTP id
<B1204976257(_at_)hdflem01(_dot_)fl(_dot_)hostdepot(_dot_)net> for
<hverma(_at_)glocol(_dot_)net>;
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:51:36 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
id 1E2nCs-0004gN-8o; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:49:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2nCp-0004cq-KV
for ietf(_at_)megatron(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:49:03
-0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16847
for <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns4a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.138] helo=ns4.townisp.com)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E2nku-0000SL-5U
for ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:24:17 -0400
Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com
[216.49.158.220])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified))
by ns4.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5987F29966
for <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:48:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marty.blilly.com (marty.blilly.com [192.168.99.98] (may be
forged)) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP
id j7A9mo2Z005170(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com /etc/sendmail.mc.mail
1.26 2005/06/24 20:47:59)
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) ;
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:48:52 -0400
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP
id j7A9mnnO005165(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.3 2005/04/08
12:29:31) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ;
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:48:50 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
Organization: Bruce Lilly
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:48:42 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <46uajf$7u7vn7(_at_)mx21(_dot_)mrf(_dot_)mail(_dot_)rcn(_dot_)net>
In-Reply-To: <46uajf$7u7vn7(_at_)mx21(_dot_)mrf(_dot_)mail(_dot_)rcn(_dot_)net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200508100548(_dot_)44203(_at_)mail(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?
X-BeenThere: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: 2005-08-09 09:16
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
The question on the table since RFC 3774 is: why don't we
execute the transition to Draft Standard more often,
otherwise known as: why are there so few implementation
reports at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html
(three this year, I believe)?
One issue has been identified and discussed, but as far as I know has
not been resolved. Consider RFCs 3885 through 3888 produced by the
MSGTRK working group; three of the four are Standards Track at Proposed,
all were published September 2004. The PS RFCs could have advanced to
Draft as early as March 2005 (six months) but for one problem;
advancement requires that the WG Chair produce documentation on
interoperable implementations. So why hasn't the MSGTRK WG worked on
advancement to Draft? Well, there isn't a MSGTRK WG any more (and
therefore no MSGTRK WG Chair); the IESG disbanded it. Will the IESG
reinstate the WG to advance the three Standards Track RFCs to Draft?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf