On 2007-11-03 06:00, Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> 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
*>
Brian,
So, this implementation report registry would be analogous to the
current errata registry> E.g., the RFC search engine would note
the existence of implementation reports for a particular RFC, just
as it now notes the existence of errata?
That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't see why we'd need the
overhead of making those reports into RFCs, and we'd have to ensure
that the IETF wasn't making any assertions that could carry
liability. (And I agree with the idea of reviving Larry Masinter's
draft.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
