+1 On Oct 26, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> Action >> >> We should adopt Russ's proposal: Axe the DRAFT status and automatically >> promote all DRAFT status documents to STANDARD status. This can be done >> formally by changing the process or the IESG can just agree to a convention >> where every DRAFT standard is automatically promoted. >> [snip] >> The Internet is now a large place with two billion users. Any institution >> that wants to be influential in shaping the future of the Internet has to be >> willing to commit to the proposals it is making. The current process >> represents an abdication of will and a failure of commitment. It should be >> corrected as a matter of urgency. > > I agree with much of that, but suspect I might have worded it differently. > Bottom line, we put a lot of effort into making documents at the "Proposed" > level "right", and at that point the people working on it have neither > incentive nor energy left to do anything more with it unless it is shown to > have a bug. There are people that will only buy a product if it has been > interoperability-tested with another vendor's product; they generally do > interoperability testing themselves. > > So yes, move Draft Standards to Standard, and eliminate Draft Standard as a > status. > > I might also make two other changes. > > There is a rule in 2026 that says that every feature of the protocol has to > be shown interoperable, and it strongly prefers complete implementations - > and wants an updated version with the unused bits removed. It turns out that > this becomes hard to accomplish for various reasons, and is one of the issues > with taking protocols to Draft (er) Standard. It could also be described as > the purpose of a PICS Pro Forma; other standards bodies write documents that > say "when you are using protocol X for purpose Y, you need to implement > features Z1, Z2, and Z3". PICS make me crazy, but they may be an acceptable > alternative to the current rule. > > And how do you do interoperability testing? I suspect that if N vendors care > and are in a position to say that they have several common customers that are > using both of their equipment interchangeably in the same network, that > constitutes prima facie evidence of interoperability. We would need to > clearly specify what an acceptable statement of interoperability is, but we > might consider that approach. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
