Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Would you consider if these new documents are *RFC*s or, would you consider
>> if we could make a new document series for these documents? I would suggest
>> that it become the*Proposed Standard* series. That is, we'd change our
>> first step to not be an*RFC*.
> At first glance I find this idea appealing. I'd like to see it explored.
> At lot depends on other factors - e.g. when, relative to interop testing, do
> we look for potential harm to other interests?
When do we do that now? At IESG review, which is what causes such
significant delays.
That's just too late in the game for an *RFC*, which we can never really take
back. The property that you like about internet-drafts is that they are
in principal ephermeral, or more to the point, version NN replaces NN-1,
and we can revise them. That's the property you are looking for, I think.
> (though maybe we don't need a new document series - maybe we just need a way
> of designating certain Internet-Drafts as being suitable for interop testing
> and/or limited deployment)
That was proposed a few months ago. See:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zy2l7gWR8yGRIIt5mYY5WSorqGY
I prefer that we create a new series. Maybe it shouldn't be hosted on *RFC-EDITOR.ORG*,
but I'd want the identical infrastructure used.
(I would name it after the WG involved. WG-FOOBAR-1234, but I think this is
a detail, and I'm not stronly attached)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
