| it looks so - maybe it would be good to have a pointer in this doc
Scott 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
Scott Bradner
Harvard University Information Technology Security | Policy, Risk & Compliance +1 617 495 3864 29 Oxford St., Room 407 Cambridge, MA 02138
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf