I would strongly object to a change to our process that removed the requirement
to demonstrate interoperability.
If we need additional incentives to advancement, perhaps we should require that
proposed standards revert to informational or historic if no action is taken
within three years. (action being: recycle at proposed, advance to draft)
Keith
On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin
> <martin.thom...@andrew.com> wrote:
>>> The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to
>>> advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that
>>> rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative
>>> interoperability reports ("Vendor A is doing it wrong, so the spec must
>>> be unclear or have features that are unwanted") to considered
>>> objections?
>>
>> I had a similar question. The proposal seems to suggest that there be no
>> difference in the requirements or guidelines that a specification must meet
>> at each stage. Is this intentional? Is it the intent to remove these more
>> conditions?
>>
>
> Yes, this is intentional. The current gates for proposed standard are
> high. If a doc passes them and no
> one finds new issues in two years of use, it is probably done. If
> there are issues (filed errata, an ongoing
> effort at a -bis, community reaction that it is not really in use), I
> think two years will probably find them
> well enough for a draft designation (and five for full).
>
> Just my two cents,
>
> Ted
>
>> If that is not the intent, then there still needs to be some definition of
>> what is expected of a specification at a particular maturity such that
>> objections can be assessed by the IESG.
>>
>> --Martin
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
