Fred Baker wrote: > I would like to believe that a well documented interoperability test > constitutes DS qualification; the current DS qualification sets the > bar somewhat higher than that, and I note that few documents actually > achieve that, even though we can daily see implementations > interoperating in the field at PS. Some data to Fred's point: By RFC, not by STD (obviously): Status 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- PS 102 119 71 105 103 131 169 DRAFT 6 6 2 4 7 7 3 STD 3(*) 2 0 8* 3 0 1 (*) 3 in 1999 were SMIv2 6 in 2002 were SNMP. These are rough based on 10 minutes of scripting I did back in March. I believe there are two reasons for the huge gap between PS and DRAFT: - it's difficult to get there (interop requirements, picking out uncommonly used features, etc) - nobody wants or needs to do the work (what GM in her right mind would want her experts working on something that neither generates new features nor fixes product bugs) If Iljitsch's proposal is that the IESG "makes a call" based perhaps on somebody's request with some modest effort to demonstrate that a spec is ready for the next step, I think that actually would be a fine two-step approach. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf