On 13 Mar 2004, at 4:21 pm, John C Klensin wrote:
snip
(1) In your example above, I suggest that, with the amount to scrutiny
now going into getting things to Proposed, the types of problems you
identify above would be detected there and dealt with. And, if they
were not, we have a more
Maybe I'm confused but, as I understand it, standards track level is
already, in principle, completely decoupled from write and publish an
RFC in that the standards level is not incorporated in the RFC
anywhere but listed separately.
In general, I agree with John Klensin as to what are considered
--On Friday, 12 March, 2004 20:19 -0500 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2) When a document comes up for review for
Proposed-Draft, we look for implementations, etc.,
perhaps following Keith's proposal outline. If the
implementations are there, we issue a
--On Monday, 08 March, 2004 13:26 -0500 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's all well and good to try to retire Proposed Standard
documents that don't get implemented. But I think it's even
more important to make it easier for documents that do meet
the criteria to advance to Draft
John,
I think the things you describe have very many of the same ideals and
targets as draft-loghney-what-standards, currently being discussed in
newtrk, which still needs work and significant input to be converted from
an idea to a workable process - we may have a rare case of singing in
(2) When a document comes up for review for
Proposed-Draft, we look for implementations, etc.,
perhaps following Keith's proposal outline. If the
implementations are there, we issue a Last Call for
identification of serious technical/definitional flaws
--On 9. mars 2004 22:46 -0600 Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't KNOW that what I'm thinking is true, but I'm wondering to
myself if the target audience for protocol specification maintenance
is all in the IETF...
not all the audience for protocol specification is in the IETF, so
--On 9. mars 2004 19:54 -0800 Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I made the comment that I thought we should apply RFC 2026 and force
things to either advance or go historic. Our AD advised us in one case
that if our WG wanted one of its RFCs to go historic, we had to write
another RFC
Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a document
advanced is to collect the implementation report.
Hence this modest proposal:
[clip]
I rather like the proposal. What's been lacking is any forum for further
development of standards outside of mailing lists and IETF
Hi -
From: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
I spent more time trying to capture what people were saying at the
plenary than trying to figure out who said what
--On 8. mars 2004 12:38 -0700 Rick Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a document
advanced is to collect the implementation report.
Hence this modest proposal:
[clip]
I rather like the proposal. What's been lacking is any forum for further
]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
--On 8. mars 2004 12:38 -0700 Rick Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a
document
advanced is to collect the implementation report
Harald,
HTA In the steady state (30 docs/month, currently), perhaps 30 man-hours/month
30 documents go to Proposed each month?
The steady-state rate of review is the average number of documents that
go to Proposed. (well, ok, the average of the number that went to
proposed 2 years ago.
In
It's all well and good to try to retire Proposed Standard documents that
don't get implemented. But I think it's even more important to make it
easier for documents that do meet the criteria to advance to Draft
Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a document
advanced is to
Over the past couple of years, I've been involved in a W3C effort that
might have some useful lessons for this discussion.
The working group concerned adopted a working practice of creating test
cases for any significant decision that it was required to make. One of
the observations that
Harald,
In any event, we can distinguish documents that newly come up to their
2-year limit, versus dusting out the closet of those that already hit 2
years, before this.
HTA I'd like to tackle both - it seems silly to have all this garbage
My comment did not suggest that older Proposed
it's me again.
--On 4. mars 2004 10:59 -0800 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We come to different conclusions here. My conclusion is that no standard
should remain at proposed for more than 2 years unless it's revised.
Either it goes up, it goes away, or it gets revised and goes around
I spent more time trying to capture what people were saying at the
plenary than trying to figure out who said what, but I would like to
figure out who said
[06:43:24] anewton too much time needed to take something out there
and take it back to historic.
[06:43:44] anewton suggests steps for
--On 7. mars 2004 17:07 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
HTA In the steady state (30 docs/month, currently), perhaps 30
man-hours/month
30 documents go to Proposed each month?
The steady-state rate of review is the average number of documents that
go to Proposed. (well,
07, 2004 2:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
it's me again.
--On 4. mars 2004 10:59 -0800 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We come to different conclusions here. My conclusion is
that no standard
should remain
Eliot == Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eliot Sam, As the person who most recently complained, let me
Eliot elaborate on my comments. The problem I believe we all are
Eliot facing is that the distinction between Proposed, Draft, and
Eliot Internet Standard has been lost.
Sam,
As the person who most recently complained, let me elaborate on my
comments. The problem I believe we all are facing is that the
distinction between Proposed, Draft, and Internet Standard has been lost.
I agree with you 100% that...
The point of proposed standard is to throw things out
Sam,
SH Hi. For the past few plenary meetings, people have gotten up to the
...
SH I disagree.
SH The point of proposed standard is not to throw a document out there
SH and get comments, although of course we're always willing to listen to
SH comments on our documents.
SH The point of proposed
23 matches
Mail list logo
