On 14-May-24 06:12, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
On 5/13/24 14:05, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/13/2024 10:58 AM, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
brown-field work
a term with which I am not familiar.
d/
My apologies. It refers to a well trodden ground (i.e. not green-field).
My point is that if the work regards currently deployed protocols, maybe
the process for getting an RFC should be a little stricter.
The question "Will this damage running code?" seems legitimate, and I
hope the IESG considers it whenever relevant. It's explicit in RFC 2026
that "Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required" for PS, so Dave is correct that this is a higher requirement
than normal. But it conforms to RFC 2026 because of that "Usually" and
the following paragraph:
~~~
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet.
~~~
Brian
