Dave:
The document says:
(Full) Internet Standard: The Internet community achieves rough
consensus -- on using the running code of a specification.
This causes me pause, because it does not say that the RFC was sufficient
to produce interoperable implementations.
Perhaps this is a problem with the words that were selected, but it might
be a fundamental concern. I can't tell from the draft. Please explain.
Russ
> Folks,
>
> A few of us have formulated an alternative proposal for streamlining the
> IETF
> standards process. We hope that it at least adds to the mix of discussion
> in
> the community.
>
> d/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt
> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:15:02 -0800
> From: Internet-Drafts@xxxxxxxx
> Reply-To: internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx
> To: i-d-announce@xxxxxxxx
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
> Title : Two-Stage IETF Standardization
> Author(s) : S. Dawkins, et al.
> Filename : draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt
> Pages : 8
> Date : 2010-11-09
>
> RFC 2026 specifies a three-stage Standards Track. As currently
> practiced, IETF standards track documents typically attain only the
> first stage. This proposal discusses the problems caused by the
> disparity between documented procedures and actual practice, and
> proposes a simplified, two-step standard track, which will streamline
> the IETF standardization process, with distinct benefits for each
> stage. Clarification of the criteria for handling documents re-
> submitted as Proposed Standard is also provided.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf