And the real question is, are we moving forward? I think that we are not moving as far as we originally wanted. However, I offer we are moving a baby step forward, and as such is worthwhile doing. On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: > Scott - > > Didn't RFC 5657 address your point 2? > > The current proposal no longer requires this report during advancement, but it does not disallow it. > I hope it's obvious that I believe these reports are valuable, but I am willing to accept the proposed > structure, with the hope and expectation that communities that are serious about producing and > refining protocols will be producing these reports anyhow. > > RjS > > On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > >> >> this is better than the last version but >> >> 1/ I still see no reason to think that this change will cause any >> significant change in the percent of Proposed Standards that move up the >> (shorter) standards track since the proposal does nothing to change the >> underlying reasons that people do not expend the effort needed to >> advance documents >> >> 2/ one of the big issues with the PS->DS step is understanding what >> documentation is needed to show that there are the interoperable >> implementations and to list the unused features - it would help a lot to >> provide some guidance (which I did not do in 2026 - as I have been >> reminded a number of times :-) ) as to just what process is to be >> followed >> >> could be >> a spread sheet showing features & implementations >> an assertion by the person proposing the advancement that the >> requirements have been met >> or something in between >> >> Scott >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf