Hi, I was referring to section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026 "The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those options or features are removed." Roni Even > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:37 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre- > evaluation-05 > > Hi Roni, > At 23:37 17-05-10, Roni Even wrote: > >I am not the expert on the requirements and it will be up to the IESG. > I > > I don't know whether you are pondering what I'm pondering. Do you > mean that it is up to the IESG to define what the requirements are? > > >think that when you go to full standard you need to take out any > commands > >and tags that are not used by interoperable products. If that was done > >previously than it is OK but I suggest that you mention it to the > IESG. > > Quoting Section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026: > > "A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final > specification, > and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems > encountered." > > According to Section 4.1.3 of RFC 2026, an Internet Standard, or what > is sometimes referred to as Full Standard, is a "specification for > which significant implementation and successful operational > experience has been obtained". > > The YAM WG Charter states that: > > "The working group does not intend to revise the actual protocols > in any way and will avoid document changes that might even > accidentally introduce protocol changes, destabilize a protocol, > or introduce semantic or syntactic changes." > > "If an existing protocol implementation is conforming to the Draft > Standard version of the protocol specification, it must also be > conforming to the resulting Full Standard version." > > the "success in the WG requires that there be a good-faith > commitment by both its participants and the IESG to avoid seeking > changes that (a) do not contribute in a substantial and substantive > way to the quality and comprehensibility of the specification, or > that (b) force a change to the existing protocol." > > There is an expectation that the IESG is aware of the requirements > specified in RFC 2026 and what is written in the YAM WG Charter. > > Regards, > -sm > > P.S. If there are any false expectations, the IETF will have to > review the biological recombinant algorithmic intelligence nexus. :-) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf