At 09:44 PM 10/25/2010, John Levine wrote:
>I am happy to agree to what the draft currently says. We've sliced
>and diced this many times over the years, and this seems very close to the
>least-unpopular view. That's the best we can hope for, imho.
I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was
asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent
implementations just to have an ID I was presenting be considered to
become a WG item.
That bar is just WAY too high.
That said, I think the only part I'm concerned about with your
proposal is allowing Internet Standards to reference Proposed
Standards. Given that they can change so much - or more likely - they
can have parts of them that just aren't ever implemented, but still
have one or more of these un-implemented parts that is a critical to
the Internet Standard.
I guess if this clears the logjam of all the other issues, I'm
willing to agree to this.
James
+1
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
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
