If you read the definitions and theoretic criterial for Proposed versus Draft, it makes a lot of sense. Proposed is just "proposed" and non-injurious to the Internet. Draft required interoperability of independent implementations and is the first level where widespread implementation is recommended. This distinction makes a lot of sense.
The problem is the constantly escalating hurdles in practice to get to Proposed... Thanks, Donald On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com> wrote: > I guess the question I have is why bother having any of these levels at > all? What legitimate purpose are they ACTUALLY serving? > > Eliot > > > On 11/12/09 4:28 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: > >> One idea discussed over various beverages last night was based on an >> observation about the high bar that most Proposed Standards have had to pass >> over in order to become RFCs: many of them would not have gotten to >> publication without having already gone through interoperability testing. >> >> So the idea is that the shepherding files for such I-Ds could include >> interoperability reports indicating that they *are* already interoperable >> and have successful operational experience, and then be published directly >> at Draft Standard status. >> >> Tony Hansen >> t...@att.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
