ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

2007-11-01 14:37:40
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-11-01 21:36, Simon Josefsson wrote:

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.

In which case we might want to resurrect Larry Masinter's proposal about
feature sets:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00

I've been following that in defining a feature set for XMPP:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-feature-set-00

Whether I can convince XMPP developers to submit implementation reports
is another question. :)

Perhaps more experiments along these lines are in order?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>