it looks so - maybe it would be good to have a pointer in this doc Scott
On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: > Scott - > > Didn't RFC 5657 address your point 2? > > The current proposal no longer requires this report during advancement, but > it does not disallow it. > I hope it's obvious that I believe these reports are valuable, but I am > willing to accept the proposed > structure, with the hope and expectation that communities that are serious > about producing and > refining protocols will be producing these reports anyhow. > > RjS > > On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > >> >> this is better than the last version but >> >> 1/ I still see no reason to think that this change will cause any >> significant change in the percent of Proposed Standards that move up the >> (shorter) standards track since the proposal does nothing to change the >> underlying reasons that people do not expend the effort needed to >> advance documents >> >> 2/ one of the big issues with the PS->DS step is understanding what >> documentation is needed to show that there are the interoperable >> implementations and to list the unused features - it would help a lot to >> provide some guidance (which I did not do in 2026 - as I have been >> reminded a number of times :-) ) as to just what process is to be >> followed >> >> could be >> a spread sheet showing features & implementations >> an assertion by the person proposing the advancement that the >> requirements have been met >> or something in between >> >> Scott >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > Scott Bradner Harvard University Information Technology Security | Policy, Risk & Compliance +1 617 495 3864 29 Oxford St., Room 407 Cambridge, MA 02138 www.harvard.edu/huit
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
