At 1:12 PM -0400 6/21/10, Scott Lawrence wrote: >On 2010-06-20 10:41, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >> >>On 6/20/2010 11:53 AM, SM wrote: >>>The reader will note that neither implementation nor operational >>>experience is required. In practice, the IESG does "require >>>implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed >>>Standard status". >> >> >>Well, they do not /always/ require it. >> >> >>That said, the fact that they often do and that we've lived with the reality >>of that for a long time could make it interesting to simplify things >>significantly: >> >> 1. Have the current requirements for Draft be the entry-level requirement >> for a standard -- do away with Proposed, not Draft. >> >> 2. Have a clear demonstration of industry acceptance (deployment and use) >> be the criterion for "Internet Standard" (ie, Full.) >> >>Having two interoperable implementations required for /all/ new >>specifications takes care of two interesting questions. >> >> a. Whether the specification can be at all understood. >> >> b. Whether there is any meaningful industry motivation to >> care about the work. >> >>With these two questions satisfied, the nature of challenges against >>standardization might tend to be more pragmatic than theoretical. >I strongly support this approach. The main drawback of this would be that a >document would sometimes need to exist for longer as an I-D while >implementations are developed, but balancing that is the fact that those >implementations would then inform the first RFC version rather than some >subsequent update, and it would be harder to get an RFC published for >something no one is really going to build.
It would only be harder to get a standards track RFC published for something no one is really going to build: there will still be Experimental and Informational RFCs. Such a change would put an new and interesting set of pressures on WGs, and on individuals who go through the individual submission process for standards track. It is well worth considering. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
