> The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to
> advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that
> rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative
> interoperability reports ("Vendor A is doing it wrong, so the spec must
> be unclear or have features that are unwanted") to considered
> objections?
I had a similar question. The proposal seems to suggest that there be no difference in the requirements or guidelines that a specification must meet at each stage. Is this intentional? Is it the intent to remove these more conditions?
If that is not the intent, then there still needs to be some definition of what is expected of a specification at a particular maturity such that objections can be assessed by the IESG.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf