RE: 2026, draft, full, etc.
2007-11-02 10:42:46
I would prefer to have someone write an RFC describing the interoperability
tests performed, and the implementatiopns that were found to complete the tests
successfully at the conclusion of the test.
Implementations that fail would be simply ignored unless the implementor
expressly wanted to include a caveat describing the inconsistency discovered.
Nobody wants their dirty laundry written up.
If as often happens an ambiguity in the spec was noted this would be noted in
the interop document and either a proposed resolution noted or a note to the
effect that this must be decided by the WG.
Such a document would be Informational status and be produced after a
specification had gone to Proposed Standard.
I would also suggest weakening the requirement for recycling at Proposed. At
present this is required to change SHOULD to MUST. In some cases however this
is found to be desirable as an effectively essential criteria for interop.
The normal series of events to get to standard would thus be:
Drafts* -> PROPOSED -> Interop & Erata reports -> DRAFT STANDARD -> ?? ->
IETF-STANDARD
Where ?? stands for the unknown criteria for moving to full standard that some
feel are essential even though only 4 RFCs other SNMP specs have gone to full
standard since 1999.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:01 PM
To: simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org;
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.
*>
*> 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
*>
Brian,
So, this implementation report registry would be analogous to
the current errata registry> E.g., the RFC search engine
would note the existence of implementation reports for a
particular RFC, just as it now notes the existence of errata?
Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
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
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Simon Josefsson
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Eliot Lear
- Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Ned Freed
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Bob Braden |
Next by Date: |
Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: PerformanceMetrics atOther Layers (pmol)], Randy Presuhn |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Bob Braden |
Next by Thread: |
Re: 2026, draft, full, etc., Brian E Carpenter |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|