And the real question is, are we moving forward? I think that we are not moving
as far as we originally wanted. However, I offer we are moving a baby step
forward, and as such is worthwhile doing.
On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Scott -
Didn't RFC 5657 address your point 2?
The current proposal no longer requires this report during advancement, but
it does not disallow it.
I hope it's obvious that I believe these reports are valuable, but I am
willing to accept the proposed
structure, with the hope and expectation that communities that are serious
about producing and
refining protocols will be producing these reports anyhow.
RjS
On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
this is better than the last version but
1/ I still see no reason to think that this change will cause any
significant change in the percent of Proposed Standards that move up the
(shorter) standards track since the proposal does nothing to change the
underlying reasons that people do not expend the effort needed to
advance documents
2/ one of the big issues with the PS->DS step is understanding what
documentation is needed to show that there are the interoperable
implementations and to list the unused features - it would help a lot to
provide some guidance (which I did not do in 2026 - as I have been
reminded a number of times :-) ) as to just what process is to be
followed
could be
a spread sheet showing features & implementations
an assertion by the person proposing the advancement that the
requirements have been met
or something in between
Scott
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf