Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

On 2007-11-01 21:36, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
...

> > So why are we even having an argument about what gets stuck into
> > requirements for DS?
> Because Brian wrote a draft...
Sorry ;-)

> > Shouldn't we instead be eliminating it entirely?
> I'm not sure about this.  I used to think DS was useless, but it doesn't
> seem actively harmful.  I think the problem is that we don't have a
> replacement for it today.  If we can come up with a scheme to allow the
> community to know which standards are mature and which are not, and that
> scheme actually works, I think we could eliminate the DS way.  But until
> that happens, I'm not sure.
One idea that was floated a couple of years ago, as part of a one-level
standards track, was to retain the register of implementation reports
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html) and mark the entries
that have been approved by the IESG. The RFC index could then point to
approved implementation reports, without any formal "promotion" needed.

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf