-Original Message-
From: Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jul 24, 2006 7:24 AM
To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: netwrk stuff
On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 06:51 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
The question as to why that initiative's process
On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 06:51 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
The question as to why that initiative's process was stalled would
have to be answered to be fair. One would have to take into
consideration whether the underlying technologies were the issue,
those undertaking the effort abandoned it, or
Dave -
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: netwrk stuff
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
By way
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 7:28 PM -0400 7/12/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG has
at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a document may
move to Standard
Dave Crocker writes...
The key point is having a status that is determined by
market penetration, rather than technical details. Proposed
is for the technical work. Full is for market success.
That sounds reasonable.
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed
have a
At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit, such
as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the work cannot
gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants
moving to
Nelson, David wrote:
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed
have a limit, such as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble
about that, too.) If the work cannot gain sufficient adoption
by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants moving to
Historic.
I think
Why not start everything at Experimental, and if it gains market
success then it moves to Full.
dbh
-Original Message-
From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:03 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: RE: netwrk stuff
Dave Crocker writes
David Harrington wrote:
Why not start everything at Experimental, and if it gains market
success then it moves to Full.
why not make the smallest change we can, rather than alter the existing, basic
mechanism for entering standards track (and, for that matter, why not preserve
the use of
On Jul 21, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
David Harrington wrote:
Why not start everything at Experimental, and if it gains market
success then it moves to Full.
why not make the smallest change we can, rather than alter the
existing, basic mechanism for entering standards track
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit,
such as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the
work cannot gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed
On 12-Jul-06, at 19:28 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I can't believe that I just raised my hand after who is willing to
work on this tomorrow... But here is the abstract, let me know if
I should write the rest:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This
At 7:28 PM -0400 7/12/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I can't believe that I just raised my hand after who is willing to
work on this tomorrow... But here is the abstract, let me know if I
should write the rest:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This
I can't believe that I just raised my hand after who is willing to
work on this tomorrow... But here is the abstract, let me know if I
should write the rest:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG has
at
On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG
has at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a
document may move to Standard (which replaces
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I can't believe that I just raised my hand after who is willing to work on
this tomorrow... But here is the abstract, let me know if I should write the
rest:
...
I'm not sure if Brian was serious about writing, as there are numerous
proposals
On 12-jul-2006, at 19:36, Fred Baker wrote:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG
has at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a
document may move to Standard (which replaces Draft Standard
17 matches
Mail list logo
