Tony Hain <alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Lars, > > As I understand it, the characterization was correct. Try though I may, I can't stretch it to "correct". In fairness to James, though, it was _not_ false, just misleading. (After all, it led me to a thoroughly inaccurate assumption: that the ruling and the suggestion were about the same issue.) Assuming the minutes are correct (by definition, an appropriate assumption), the _ruling_ was that the I-D _could_not_ be adopted because it was out of scope in the Charter. The suggestion had to do with what would make Lars comfortable in proposing a change in the Charter (which could not be accomplished that day in any case). _One_thing_ he suggested was documenting multiple implementation if they existed. James, of course, is perfectly entitled to raise the question of whether an AD should even _consider_ whether a spec is sufficiently detailed to enable two interoperable implementations without being supplemented by out-of-band communications with the author(s). > The level of the bar you appear to be setting is appropriate for > progressing an ID out of the WG, Actually, I don't agree the "multiple implementations" bar for Proposed Standard is _ever_ appropriate... > but completely insane for evaluating a personal submission for > becoming a WG item. (Thus, I'd consider it also inappropriate for that evaluation.) But recall, the _ruling_ was that it was out of scope -- not whether the I-D was adequate for adoption by _a_ Transport WG as a WG draft. (I find it a bit distressing that some WGs don't think their Charter places any limits on what they may adopt as a work item. I'm pretty sure this is explained in WGC training sessions. Does it need to be repeated at a WGC meeting every IETF?) > In the abstract, requiring multiple interoperable implementations > of personal drafts essentially codifies that the IETF process is > irrelevant... It would be _entirely_ appropriate if the Individual Submission was seeking Draft Standard status. May I suggest that our problem may be the RFC2026 "time-in-grade" requirements? Perhaps the IESG should be trusted to publish an RFC as Draft Standard _without_ going through the whole process twice? -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf