Fred Baker wrote:
I would like to believe that a well documented interoperability test
constitutes DS qualification; the current DS qualification sets the
bar somewhat higher than that, and I note that few documents actually
achieve that, even though we can daily see implementations
interoperating in the field at PS.
Some data to Fred's point:
By RFC, not by STD (obviously):
Status 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
PS 102 119 71 105 103 131 169
DRAFT 6 6 2 4 7 7 3
STD 3(*) 2 0 8* 3 0 1
(*) 3 in 1999 were SMIv2 6 in 2002 were SNMP.
These are rough based on 10 minutes of scripting I did back in March. I
believe there are two reasons for the huge gap between PS and DRAFT:
- it's difficult to get there (interop requirements, picking out
uncommonly used features, etc)
- nobody wants or needs to do the work (what GM in her right
mind would want her experts working on something that neither
generates new features nor fixes product bugs)
If Iljitsch's proposal is that the IESG "makes a call" based perhaps on
somebody's request with some modest effort to demonstrate that a spec is ready
for the next step, I think that actually would be a fine two-step approach.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf