On 11 Dec 2018, at 3:56, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
On 2018/12/07 01:27, Sam Whited wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, at 10:12, Tom Worster wrote:
First, I also think this work is valuable but I don't understand how
the
ID is supposed to proceed. The point of bringing it to IETF is to
get
its authority behind the statement that these specific vectors test
conformance to the PRECIS RFCs. How can the IETF give this without
restarting the WG to push the ID forwards as a Standards Track RFC?
I
don't think the independent submission review process can.
I don't really understand the process, but this makes sense to me and
I think you're probably right. I'd be curious to hear if other IETF
people who actually understand how any of this works agree or not
though.
Based on my past own experience, I understand some of this, but not
all
of it. Besides Standards Track RFCs created by a WG, there's also the
concept of a draft being sponsored by an Area Director for Standards
Track. But this isn't used very much these days.
That's a possibility. It's not a lot of effort to try. Appears it's a
matter of asking an Applications and Real-Time Area Director to sponsor
it and advance it to IETF-wide Last Call. In the worst case the answer
is that such a draft requires WG review.
Section 6.2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/precis/about/
Tom
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
