thank you - clarity does help
but such an effort will not remove the need for this document imo
Scott
On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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