Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2007-11-01 21:36, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I'm not sure about this. I used to think DS was useless, but it doesn't >> seem actively harmful. I think the problem is that we don't have a >> replacement for it today. If we can come up with a scheme to allow the >> community to know which standards are mature and which are not, and that >> scheme actually works, I think we could eliminate the DS way. But until >> that happens, I'm not sure. > > One idea that was floated a couple of years ago, as part of a one-level > standards track, was to retain the register of implementation reports > (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html) and mark the entries > that have been approved by the IESG. The RFC index could then point to > approved implementation reports, without any formal "promotion" needed. In which case we might want to resurrect Larry Masinter's proposal about feature sets: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00 I've been following that in defining a feature set for XMPP: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-feature-set-00 Whether I can convince XMPP developers to submit implementation reports is another question. :) Perhaps more experiments along these lines are in order? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf