28.07.2011 16:52, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/28/11 1:05 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
The new version is obviously shorter, but it omits some points. With
eliminating of DS level, RFC 5657 makes no sense more.
Wrong. The *title* needs to be adjusted, but mutatis mutandis the
general advice is useful.
The document says:
RFC 2026 [1] requires a report
that documents interoperability between at least two implementations
from different code bases as an interim step ("Draft Standard")
before a specification can be advanced further to the third and final
maturity level ("Standard") based on widespread deployment and use.
In contrast, this document measures interoperability through
widespread deployment of multiple implementations from different code
bases, thus condensing the two separate metrics into one.
which implies that no requirement for interoperability reports is set.
RFC 5735 defines what the implementation report is; so I think retaining
RFC 5735 as BCP will create confusion, as it will define procedures for
the issue which no longer exists.
It should be
obsoleted and moved to Historic by your document, if IESG decides to
eliminate the requirement for interoperability documentation, which I am
opposed to (see my LC comments to -06).
I see no reason to move RFC 5657 to Historic.
See above.
Another issue is STD numbers. Mentioning that they are still assigned
to ISs in Section 2.2 should be fine.
The STD issue is orthogonal.
Also, Section 3.3:
(2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
document as Proposed Standard.
Won't such action be allowed after 2 years from approval?
That's what the text says, no?
Yes, I misunderstood the statement. I thought that before 2 years come,
DS->PS may be OK while after these 2 years this won't be OK, while it's
vice versa.
Mykyta
Peter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf