On 2007-11-01 21:36, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
So why are we even having an argument about what gets stuck into
requirements for DS?
Because Brian wrote a draft...
Sorry ;-)
Shouldn't we instead be eliminating it entirely?
I'm not sure about this. I used to think DS was useless, but it doesn't
seem actively harmful. I think the problem is that we don't have a
replacement for it today. If we can come up with a scheme to allow the
community to know which standards are mature and which are not, and that
scheme actually works, I think we could eliminate the DS way. But until
that happens, I'm not sure.
One idea that was floated a couple of years ago, as part of a one-level
standards track, was to retain the register of implementation reports
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html) and mark the entries
that have been approved by the IESG. The RFC index could then point to
approved implementation reports, without any formal "promotion" needed.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
