Re: IETF processes (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 10/28/2010 9:22 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
ost times it would be better if IETF WGs initially create
an Experimental status RFC, possibly doing so quite rapidly,
and then later revise that (based on at experience) and
publish the revision on the IETF standards-track.


1. Getting /any/ RFC through the IETF process is very high overhead, including Experimental.

2. Why does what you've suggested not qualify for the IRTF rather than the IETF? Shouldn't a standards process be able to sit down and do a standard, rather than iterate on experimental designs?

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]