If you read the definitions and theoretic criterial for Proposed versus
Draft, it makes a lot of sense. Proposed is just "proposed" and
non-injurious to the Internet. Draft required interoperability of
independent implementations and is the first level where widespread
implementation is recommended. This distinction makes a lot of sense.
The problem is the constantly escalating hurdles in practice to get to
Proposed...
Thanks,
Donald
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
I guess the question I have is why bother having any of these levels at
all? What legitimate purpose are they ACTUALLY serving?
Eliot
On 11/12/09 4:28 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
One idea discussed over various beverages last night was based on an
observation about the high bar that most Proposed Standards have had to pass
over in order to become RFCs: many of them would not have gotten to
publication without having already gone through interoperability testing.
So the idea is that the shepherding files for such I-Ds could include
interoperability reports indicating that they *are* already interoperable
and have successful operational experience, and then be published directly
at Draft Standard status.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf