Re: publishing some standards immediately at Draft-Standard status?

[Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx>]

If you read the definitions and theoretic criterial for Proposed versus Draft, it makes a lot of sense. Proposed is just "proposed" and non-injurious to the Internet. Draft required interoperability of independent implementations and is the first level where widespread implementation is recommended. This distinction makes a lot of sense.

The problem is the constantly escalating hurdles in practice to get to Proposed...

Thanks,

Donald

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I guess the question I have is why bother having any of these levels at all?  What legitimate purpose are they ACTUALLY serving?

Eliot

On 11/12/09 4:28 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:

One idea discussed over various beverages last night was based on an observation about the high bar that most Proposed Standards have had to pass over in order to become RFCs: many of them would not have gotten to publication without having already gone through interoperability testing.

So the idea is that the shepherding files for such I-Ds could include interoperability reports indicating that they *are* already interoperable and have successful operational experience, and then be published directly at Draft Standard status.

   Tony Hansen
   tony@xxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf