Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

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

 



1/ I still do not think this (modified) proposal will have any real
   impact on the number of "Proposed Standard" documents that move
   to a (in this proposal, "the") higher level since I do not see
   how this makes any significant changes to the underlying reasons
   that documents have not progressed in the past - i.e., I see no
   reason to think that this proposal would change the world much
   (would not help, would not hurt)

2/ I think the proposal must specifically deal with the 2026 IPR licence
   requirement in section 4.1.2

      If patented or otherwise controlled technology
      is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
      also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.

   The requirement can be dealt with by explicitly discarding 
   it or by including it. But not mentioning the requirement does
   not make the issue go away.  This requirement was, in theory, a
   way to keep the IETF/IESG out of the business of evaluating
   the fairness of licensing terms.  I can remember only
   one time it came up (in an appeal) so getting rid of it may
   be fine - but don't make it look like it was just forgotten.
 
3/ I think you also be quite specific as to how to decide that the
   conditions for advancement have been met - one of the big
   implementation issues with 2026 was knowing how to decide
   that a technology was ready to be advanced (did you need
   a spreadsheet listing all features and noting with ones
   had been multiply implemented (as was done at huge effort
   for HTTP 1.1) or is there someting simplier - clear rules 
   would help avoid this type of issue in the future

4/ as part of #3 - the rules should also specifically deal with
   the following pp from 2026

      The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
      implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
      specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
      have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
      implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
      level only if those options or features are removed.

   this requirement was included to try to remove cruft from protocols
   as they went forward - maybe this is no longer a desire but,
   like with the license issue, a specific mention of what has
   been decided would mean that people would not think that
   things were not just forgotton.

Scott



_______________________________________________
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]