Lars, As I understand it, the characterization was correct. The level of the bar you appear to be setting is appropriate for progressing an ID out of the WG, but completely insane for evaluating a personal submission for becoming a WG item. In the abstract, requiring multiple interoperable implementations of personal drafts essentially codifies that the IETF process is irrelevant... At the end of the day the market only cares about interoperable implementations. The only thing they look to the IETF for is a reference for getting the vendors to play together in the sandbox. If the IETF process starts requiring the vendors to play nice in the sandbox BEFORE being blessed by the wisdom of those who are here to protect us, what is the point? Once the vendors play together the market could care less if the protectors of the world have rubber stamped their creation. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:21 AM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: 'Scott O. Bradner'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels > > On 2010-10-26, at 23:54, Tony Hain wrote: > > Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already > changing > > their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a > personal > > I-D to become a WG draft. > > James characterization is inaccurate. See my other email. > > Lars _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf