Russ,
> Dave: > > This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a > mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy > weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call, > allowing the community to support or challenge them. > > Russ
Thank you for the hallway conversation on this.
When I counted last week, only 80 implementation reports have been filed with the IESG in the history of "ever", so this doesn't seem like the right hurdle for advancement.
I assume that figure was arrived at by looking at: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation-report.html If so, it's apropos of nothing, since the list is incomplete. Just as one example, MIME interop info isn't on it, and that information definitely was generated.
I think your suggestion to make assertions at Last Call time and asking for supporting/challenging statements sounds very reasonable. The IESG can do the right thing based on Last Call comments.
For the record, I am entirely in favor of Russ' proposal but entirely opposed to this new proposal, because it eliminates the parts of the process that are working (proposed -> draft criteria) and retains the ones that aren't (draft -> full). In fact given a choice between this new proposal and the current process, I prefer the current process. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf