+1 On Oct 26, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> Action >> >> We should adopt Russ's proposal: Axe the DRAFT status and automatically promote all DRAFT status documents to STANDARD status. This can be done formally by changing the process or the IESG can just agree to a convention where every DRAFT standard is automatically promoted. >> [snip] >> The Internet is now a large place with two billion users. Any institution that wants to be influential in shaping the future of the Internet has to be willing to commit to the proposals it is making. The current process represents an abdication of will and a failure of commitment. It should be corrected as a matter of urgency. > > I agree with much of that, but suspect I might have worded it differently. Bottom line, we put a lot of effort into making documents at the "Proposed" level "right", and at that point the people working on it have neither incentive nor energy left to do anything more with it unless it is shown to have a bug. There are people that will only buy a product if it has been interoperability-tested with another vendor's product; they generally do interoperability testing themselves. > > So yes, move Draft Standards to Standard, and eliminate Draft Standard as a status. > > I might also make two other changes. > > There is a rule in 2026 that says that every feature of the protocol has to be shown interoperable, and it strongly prefers complete implementations - and wants an updated version with the unused bits removed. It turns out that this becomes hard to accomplish for various reasons, and is one of the issues with taking protocols to Draft (er) Standard. It could also be described as the purpose of a PICS Pro Forma; other standards bodies write documents that say "when you are using protocol X for purpose Y, you need to implement features Z1, Z2, and Z3". PICS make me crazy, but they may be an acceptable alternative to the current rule. > > And how do you do interoperability testing? I suspect that if N vendors care and are in a position to say that they have several common customers that are using both of their equipment interchangeably in the same network, that constitutes prima facie evidence of interoperability. We would need to clearly specify what an acceptable statement of interoperability is, but we might consider that approach. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf