The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to
advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that
rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative
interoperability reports ("Vendor A is doing it wrong, so the spec must
be unclear or have features that are unwanted") to considered
objections?
I had a similar question. The proposal seems to suggest that there be no
difference in the requirements or guidelines that a specification must meet at
each stage. Is this intentional? Is it the intent to remove these more
conditions?
If that is not the intent, then there still needs to be some definition of what
is expected of a specification at a particular maturity such that objections
can be assessed by the IESG.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf