On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin <[email protected]> wrote: >> The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to >> advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that >> rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative >> interoperability reports ("Vendor A is doing it wrong, so the spec must >> be unclear or have features that are unwanted") to considered >> objections? > > I had a similar question. The proposal seems to suggest that there be no > difference in the requirements or guidelines that a specification must meet > at each stage. Is this intentional? Is it the intent to remove these more > conditions? >
Yes, this is intentional. The current gates for proposed standard are high. If a doc passes them and no one finds new issues in two years of use, it is probably done. If there are issues (filed errata, an ongoing effort at a -bis, community reaction that it is not really in use), I think two years will probably find them well enough for a draft designation (and five for full). Just my two cents, Ted > If that is not the intent, then there still needs to be some definition of > what is expected of a specification at a particular maturity such that > objections can be assessed by the IESG. > > --Martin > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
