Russ,
> Dave:
>
> This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
> mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
> weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
> allowing the community to support or challenge them.
>
> Russ
Thank you for the hallway conversation on this.
When I counted last week, only 80 implementation reports have been filed
with the IESG in the history of "ever", so this doesn't seem like the right
hurdle for advancement.
I assume that figure was arrived at by looking at:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation-report.html
If so, it's apropos of nothing, since the list is incomplete. Just as one
example, MIME interop info isn't on it, and that information definitely was
generated.
I think your suggestion to make assertions at Last Call time and asking for
supporting/challenging statements sounds very reasonable. The IESG can do
the right thing based on Last Call comments.
For the record, I am entirely in favor of Russ' proposal but entirely opposed
to this new proposal, because it eliminates the parts of the process that are
working (proposed -> draft criteria) and retains the ones that aren't (draft ->
full).
In fact given a choice between this new proposal and the current process, I
prefer the current process.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf