In principle, the process for moving in stages from I-D to Full Standard is a good one, but only for those who know and respect the different categories. Increasingly, I get the impression that those not au fait with the workings of the IETF see an I-D as a considered piece of work, to be referenced as if was almost a standard; which is sometimes true, sometimes not. We can tell the difference, in lots of ways, others may not, so I would like more indication from the first that an I-D, particularly an individual submission, is an idea on the table, for discussion, with a mailing list attached where the discussion can happen.
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vernon Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:16 PM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > [...] The whole "community consensus" > > thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word > > "standard." [...] > > I would like to recall that new documents enter the "standards-track" > as Proposed Standards and there are various ways to proceed from there > (one of them is direct transition to Historic) and a long way to go for > becoming Standard. So even if the IESG (a group of people we should > trust - at least someone should be there you should trust ;-) made a > bad decision and nobody recognized the IETF last call, then there are > still several ways and mechanisms to fix the decision before something > becomes a "standard". (And mind you: a standards-track document which > is not deployed is just a sequence of bits in a storage device.) > <snip> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
