Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-00

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2010-06-20 10:41, Dave CROCKER wrote:


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.
I strongly support this approach. The main drawback of this would be that a document would sometimes need to exist for longer as an I-D while implementations are developed, but balancing that is the fact that those implementations would then inform the first RFC version rather than some subsequent update, and it would be harder to get an RFC published for something no one is really going to build.


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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]