thank you - clarity does help but such an effort will not remove the need for this document imo Scott On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Olaf, John, Scott, > >> In fact, going back to the language of RFC2026 for Full (now Internet) Standard. It confirms that popularity (significant implementation) is one necessary but not sufficient criterium. > > Sorry. I was careless when I wrote about the effort. I didn't mean to suggest that we have an effort to classify standards merely based on popularity. What I meat that we have an effort to move a particular set of specifications to Internet Standard, and will use the usual criteria when deciding whether the documents are ready. While that particular set of specifications happens to be popular, that was just an observation, not a (sole) reason of moving them forward. > > Hope this clarifies. > >> I would hope that any concerns about technical maturity or significant benefit to the Internet community are taken into account when making the decision. If it is the case that members of the community assess that a specification lacks interoperability that should be sufficient grounds to not advance until data proofs otherwise. > > Yes, of course. > > Jari >