On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin
<Martin.Thomson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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?
>
Yes, this is intentional. The current gates for proposed standard are
high. If a doc passes them and no
one finds new issues in two years of use, it is probably done. If
there are issues (filed errata, an ongoing
effort at a -bis, community reaction that it is not really in use), I
think two years will probably find them
well enough for a draft designation (and five for full).
Just my two cents,
Ted
> 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