Dave:
The document says:
(Full) Internet Standard: The Internet community achieves rough
consensus -- on using the running code of a specification.
This causes me pause, because it does not say that the RFC was sufficient
to produce interoperable implementations.
Perhaps this is a problem with the words that were selected, but it might
be a fundamental concern. I can't tell from the draft. Please explain.
Russ
Folks,
A few of us have formulated an alternative proposal for streamlining the
IETF
standards process. We hope that it at least adds to the mix of discussion
in
the community.
d/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:15:02 -0800
From: Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Reply-To: internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To: i-d-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Two-Stage IETF Standardization
Author(s) : S. Dawkins, et al.
Filename : draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt
Pages : 8
Date : 2010-11-09
RFC 2026 specifies a three-stage Standards Track. As currently
practiced, IETF standards track documents typically attain only the
first stage. This proposal discusses the problems caused by the
disparity between documented procedures and actual practice, and
proposes a simplified, two-step standard track, which will streamline
the IETF standardization process, with distinct benefits for each
stage. Clarification of the criteria for handling documents re-
submitted as Proposed Standard is also provided.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf