A related point, but from another direction:
My impression currently is that Full Standards never get revised again.
Unless I'm wrong, we may have to revise this practice if we go to a
model with only one standards category, because sometimes it indeed
makes sense to update a document.
Regards, Martin.
On 2009/11/13 3:33, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 11/12/09 5:23 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
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.
*IN THEORY* it once made a lot of sense, but please show me how it has
EVER made sense in practice.
The problem is the constantly escalating hurdles in practice to get to
Proposed...
That is A problem but IMHO not The Problem. Another problem is that I
know of very few profit-making ventures that really want to devote their
employees' time to an activity that gains them not one single additional
bit of functionality.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf