Pete Resnick wrote:
[...]
Section 2.2
(a) Specifically, merge Draft Standard into Internet Standard
(b) Combine criteria from Draft Standard and Standard
(i) Significant number of implementations with successful
operational experience
(ii) No unresolved errata causing interoperational problems
(iii) No unused features, except allow unused features that do not
greatly increase implementation complexity
(iv) Independent patent/licensing for implementations
(c) Remove overt requirement for documentation of interoperability
testing
[...]
2.2(b)(i) - This is the current requirement for Internet Standard. I'm
fine with that remaining, but object to the removal of any notion of
interoperability. If this were changed to "A significant number of
interoperable implementations...", I would have no objection.
+1.
2.2(b)(iii) - I would prefer that this be amended to "All unused
'MUST' requirements will be changed to 'SHOULD' requirements." If
deployment is interoperable and a feature is unused, it means that the
feature was not actually REQUIRED for interoperability. I object to
this as it stands.
-1.
If for a protocol X nobody implemented MUST implement security
mechanism, I don't think I would like it to be downgraded to a SHOULD.
At least not without a good explanation.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf