Hi Scott,
it seems to me that the choice depends on the extent of the changes to
be made. If the update process involves any change with limited impact
on both client and server implementations a Draft Standard appears more
suitable, otherwise we should opt for a Proposed Standard.
At present, the only significant update coming on my mind which should
require a Proposed Standard is the possible jCard replacement.
Best,
mario
Il 01/08/2019 18:23, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
Folks, during the IETF meeting we talked a little bit about the possibility of
re-doing the RDAP protocol specs to address clarifications and errata
identified as a result of implementation experience. We didn't have a lot of
time to talk through the possibilities, so I thought I'd start something here.
We spoke a bit in the room about the possibility of re-spinning the documents
as Proposed Standard RFCs. However, as long as we stick to fixing errata,
dealing with clarifications, etc., and not adding new features, we could make a
case for document updates with the goal of producing Draft Standard RFCs. I
believe we have enough implementation experience to meet the requirements for
publication as Draft Standards (see Section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026), so let me throw
that out there. Should we take on the update process with a goal of producing
Draft Standards, or do we need to make more substantial changes that require a
Proposed Standard re-do?
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Servizi Internet e Sviluppo Tecnologico
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
