On 4/1/25 16:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:13 AM Daniel K. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > It is mentioned several times in that thread that failure reporting is > going on by private arrangement. For this reason too, I think a proper > format for the reports should be specified. > > > I suggest that this is at least in part a contradiction. Consider: If > the arrangement is entirely private, what's the need for standardization?
I understood from that, that there is nevertheless a benefit if everyone use the same spec when generating failure reports, just as NASA now probably make sure that every 'private agreement' they make with their contractors specify whether the metric system is to be used or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter > It was, procedurally, very early in its development: > > RFC Editor work is the last step. It still needed to go through Working > Group Last Call, AD Evaluation, IETF Last Call, and IESG Evaluation, > before the RFC Editor got it. Yes, I meant that my impression was that it's ready for the same process as the other two, and that it might have been an oversight in October/November when this one was not passed on, but I don't know the reason behind that. > If we were to reopen the WG with the charter of 'Get failure reporting > done', am I wrong to think that the document is mostly finished and > ready to be sent through the pipeline? > > I don't have a good feel for the state of the content. I do think there > have been some good arguments made that it's not worth the effort. I > don't know where consensus falls on that question, and it's not my call > to make. Ale is piping up on another part of this thread, but instead of focusing on the level of abruptness when closing down, maybe we can discuss if there is any willingness at all to follow through with whatever work is left to be done? I have expressed my intention, but just as you, I don't have the overview of the state of development, although my impression is that it was practically done. Maybe Ale and/or Steven, as editors, can give an overview of the current state of progress, as they see it, and we can continue discussion after getting more information about that? The process is what it is, and I fear nothing will get done if no one will take up the mantle. More complete information will probably help in figuring out the size of the task. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
