Detaching from a thread about moving a particular specification from Experimental to PS - this means I'm (quite deliberately) taking Barry and Cyrus Daboo's quotes out of their proper context here, please bear this in mind.
But I happened to be talking about this recently, and this has reminded me.
On 6 March 2014 16:51, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My point here is that until we have interoperable implementations on bothWhy not? Interoperable implementations aren't required for Proposed
> client and server and have caught and fixed any issues in the spec, we
> shouldn't advance the status.
Standard. Internet Standard, sure, but not PS. The requirement for
PS is that we think we got it right.
So this made sense when Proposed Standard actually meant Proposed, rather than Standard.
But now that Proposed Standard actually means Draft, because (to paraphrase Scott Bradner), we've left-shifted our standards process, why aren't we requiring implementation experience for PS?
We've tightened up review a far bit, and raised the bar for spec quality in general, but since PS is now DS by any other name, it's had the effect of side-stepping the "two independent interoperable implementation" requirement.
I would like to see more implementation experience -- it's be great to
see. That's why I asked whether there is any. But to me, the gating
factor is more about whether there's *interest* in implementing it.
Wouldn't it be great to require? Running code and all that, after all...
Dave.