If we had three stages that were named
untested standard
interoperable standard
widely deployed standard
would that make any difference? Those names match what 2026 says PS, DS
and FS are supposed to represent. But the hurdle to move a standard from
the status of "untested" (PS) to "interoperable" (DS) has been rather large.
In a discussion with Russ Housley this afternoon, we talked about how
eliminating the DOWNREF problem has indeed broken the logjam somewhat,
and that there HAVE been standards moving forward to DS recently, and
even a FEW moving to FS. I consider this encouraging news. Hopefully we
can chip away at a few more of the logjams.
"More study is needed." -- anon
Tony Hansen
Donald Eastlake wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto:tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto: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