Michael, > It sure seems to me like those "implementation drafts" are what used to be > called proposed standards. > > What I see is a new step in the standardization process, along with a view > that the step after internet-draft seems to include proven interoperability. > > I propose that this document skip PS, and go straight to Internet Standard to > accurately reflect the status of this document. As others have noted, once there is real-world deployment and not just implementations, we should consider that. Status of various specifications should be accurately reflected. But I want to take this discussion back to possibly more relevant question of how we make standards. I think you are asking if this level of ‘validation’ is a requirement or even a desirable property of the standards process. And I think we can immediately respond to the first question, and respond indirectly to the second question. There is absolutely no requirement anywhere that something like this should be done in a particular standards effort. However, I think it made in this particular case, and the WG chose to go through this effort. I think that was a reasonable decision. In general, I actually prefer to see more code and development mixed as a part of the process of getting to standards. However, it should not be a requirement, and whether that even make sense in a particular situation should be up to the WG and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail