On 6/20/2010 11:53 AM, SM wrote:
The reader will note that neither implementation nor operational
experience is required. In practice, the IESG does "require
implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed
Standard status".
Well, they do not /always/ require it.
That said, the fact that they often do and that we've lived with the reality of
that for a long time could make it interesting to simplify things significantly:
1. Have the current requirements for Draft be the entry-level requirement
for a standard -- do away with Proposed, not Draft.
2. Have a clear demonstration of industry acceptance (deployment and use)
be the criterion for "Internet Standard" (ie, Full.)
Having two interoperable implementations required for /all/ new specifications
takes care of two interesting questions.
a. Whether the specification can be at all understood.
b. Whether there is any meaningful industry motivation to
care about the work.
With these two questions satisfied, the nature of challenges against
standardization might tend to be more pragmatic than theoretical.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf