Although I do sort of also agree with Scott, I think it is one step in the right
direction. So please seen a sponsor and get it published.
Bert
On 10/26/10 4:48 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this
proposal or dropping it
I do not think this proposal fixes any known problems
the major reason (imo) that technology is not advanced along the
standards track is because there is no need to do so.
someone labors for a while to get a proposed standard published and
people start to use it (if they did not start at the Internet Draft stage)
soon about anyone that has a need for the technology has implemented it and
it is being used by customers all over the globe
just what is the reason that someone would take time from working on new
technology to do the work to advance the proposed standard? it is unlikely
that all that many more people will implement or use the technology
so what is the point?
in addition, the IESG acts as if the proposed standard will be the last step
in the publication process (or at least reviews IDs as if this were the case)
so we have all the benefits of the cross area review (this making the proposed standards
about as good as one could without requiring interoperable implementations at the
first stage (i.e. bringing back running code))
so I say drop it and live with the fact that rfc 2026 does not paint an accurate
picture of the current one step standard process
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf