Scott - Didn't RFC 5657 address your point 2?
The current proposal no longer requires this report during advancement, but it does not disallow it. I hope it's obvious that I believe these reports are valuable, but I am willing to accept the proposed structure, with the hope and expectation that communities that are serious about producing and refining protocols will be producing these reports anyhow. RjS On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > this is better than the last version but > > 1/ I still see no reason to think that this change will cause any > significant change in the percent of Proposed Standards that move up the > (shorter) standards track since the proposal does nothing to change the > underlying reasons that people do not expend the effort needed to > advance documents > > 2/ one of the big issues with the PS->DS step is understanding what > documentation is needed to show that there are the interoperable > implementations and to list the unused features - it would help a lot to > provide some guidance (which I did not do in 2026 - as I have been > reminded a number of times :-) ) as to just what process is to be > followed > > could be > a spread sheet showing features & implementations > an assertion by the person proposing the advancement that the > requirements have been met > or something in between > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > 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
