On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin
<Martin(_dot_)Thomson(_at_)andrew(_dot_)com> wrote:
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?
Yes, this is intentional. The current gates for proposed standard are
high. If a doc passes them and no
one finds new issues in two years of use, it is probably done. If
there are issues (filed errata, an ongoing
effort at a -bis, community reaction that it is not really in use), I
think two years will probably find them
well enough for a draft designation (and five for full).
Just my two cents,
Ted
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