Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to see us focus on that ability to progressively revise > specifications. Is that something we might want to grab a room to > discuss in Vienna? I'm thinking about the following:
okay.
> * What are the process limits?
> * What are the tooling limits?
> * Are the requirements of all levels of the stack the same?
> * Related, what are the necessary interoperability requirements?
Interesting questions.
I would add to this the question of whether or not the Proposed Standard ->
Internet Standard step is too hard, too vague, and whether it's worth fixing,
or worth killing IS (as a few people want to do. Not me... not exactly)
> Even if we keep the process the same, can we improve other aspects,
> like how readers view errata or evolutions of works like TLS. We've
> got another one coming: TEAPv2. We don't need to rewrite *all* of
> TEAP, but rather do some incremental changes.
Yes, I don't know if you are imagining some kind of system of already
reviewed composable blocks, or what here :-)
The rfc-editor.org site rework got delayed to this week, and it might well be
that some issues are just now gone or different or maybe even worse :-(
Eliot, side-meetings are hard to schedule, but I'll try to make it if you
schedule it.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
