ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

2013-09-03 08:20:28
Olaf, John, Scott,

In fact, going back to the language of RFC2026 for Full (now Internet) 
Standard. It confirms that popularity (significant implementation) is one 
necessary but not sufficient criterium.

Sorry. I was careless when I wrote about the effort. I didn't mean to suggest 
that we have an effort to classify standards merely based on popularity. What I 
meat that we have an effort to move a particular set of specifications to 
Internet Standard, and will use the usual criteria when deciding whether the 
documents are ready. While that particular set of specifications happens to be 
popular, that was just an observation, not a (sole) reason of moving them 
forward.

Hope this clarifies.

I would hope that any concerns about technical maturity or significant 
benefit to the Internet community are taken into account when making the 
decision. If it is the case that members of the community assess that a 
specification lacks interoperability that should be sufficient grounds to not 
advance until data proofs otherwise.

Yes, of course.

Jari