At 13:39 29-10-10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Supppse we actually have the following problems:
1. People think that it's too hard to get to PS. (Never mind the
competing anecdotes. Let's just suppose this is true.)
2. People think that PS actually ought to mean Proposed and not
A few quick observations...
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 13:20 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
...
While my instinct is that RFC publication would be desirable,
if that didn't seem workable we could move the idea a bit
closer to the Snapshot idea by posting the document in the
I-D series
On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
If all of those things are right and we're actually trying to solve
them all, then it seems to me that the answer is indeed to move to _n_
maturity levels of RFC, where _n_ 3 (I propose 1), but that we
introduce some new document series
--On Thursday, October 28, 2010 14:15 -0400 RJ Atkinson
rja.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 Oct 2010, at 13:29 , Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/28/2010 9:22 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Most times it would be better if IETF WGs initially create
an Experimental status RFC, possibly doing so quite
Hi John,
This is a quick reply to your message. Please treat it as highly immature.
At 11:23 29-10-10, John C Klensin wrote:
Personally, I continue to believe that the Internet would be
better served by having a lot less difference between Proposed
and Experimental, by changing things (back?)
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20:23PM -0700, SM wrote:
It would be difficult to get buy-in if the document is not published as a
RFC.
Supppse we actually have the following problems:
1. People think that it's too hard to get to PS. (Never mind the
competing anecdotes. Let's just
Andrew == Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com writes:
Andrew On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20:23PM -0700, SM wrote:
It would be difficult to get buy-in if the document is not
published as a RFC.
Andrew Supppse we actually have the following problems:
Andrew 1. People
