Re: Moving forward on IETF problems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Brian, and others,


I do have experience of WGs that care about DS.


So do I. But this has not been the norm in my experience.

If you think back to when we were discussing a one-stage standards track in newtrk, I at least was arguing for the importance of interoperability reports even in a one-stage system. The value in the DS label is surely the knowledge that an interop report has been presented and accepted. And that's why I conceded that I could live with a two-stage process (although I still think one stage plus interop reports would be just fine).

   Brian (speaking only for myself)


_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]