Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 7:28 PM -0400 7/12/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG has
at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a document may
move to Standard
Jeffery
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Jeffrey
Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006
Dave Crocker writes...
The key point is having a status that is determined by
market penetration, rather than technical details. Proposed
is for the technical work. Full is for market success.
That sounds reasonable.
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed
have a
Jeff - thanks for insulting me so on the list - makes it easier to point out
how wrong you are... lets talk about the workflow and constraints of the
appeal process 6.5.1 as modulated by 6.5.4 is what we are talking about.
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit, such
as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the work cannot
gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants
moving to
Nelson, David wrote:
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed
have a limit, such as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble
about that, too.) If the work cannot gain sufficient adoption
by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants moving to
Historic.
I think
Why not start everything at Experimental, and if it gains market
success then it moves to Full.
dbh
-Original Message-
From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:03 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: RE: netwrk stuff
Dave Crocker writes...
The
Marcus Leech wrote:
Todd Glassey wrote:
H... The SOW MUST define all the elements of the Editor's
responsibility and all the specific tasks they perform as well as the
SLA's for those Tasks. It also MUST address the SOD (Separation of
Duties) within the Editor's work since they are
David Harrington wrote:
Why not start everything at Experimental, and if it gains market
success then it moves to Full.
why not make the smallest change we can, rather than alter the existing, basic
mechanism for entering standards track (and, for that matter, why not preserve
the use of
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
And that leads to the basic question of professional editing. As I've noted
before, my recent experience with the RFC Editor's editors was quite good.
They
definitely improved the writing in the document.
However, such an editorial effort it expensive and I do
Joe thanks for the plumber and janitor response. My response to the same
statement would be:
The IETF's Editor's have a responsibility to NOT alter IP that is submitted to
the IETF - that can by the Standards process ONLY happen through the IETF's
Vetting process and is not the perogative of
Todd Glassey wrote:
Joe thanks for the plumber and janitor response. My response to the same
statement would be:
The IETF's Editor's have a responsibility to NOT alter IP that is
submitted to the IETF - that can by the Standards process ONLY happen
through the IETF's Vetting process
On Jul 21, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
David Harrington wrote:
Why not start everything at Experimental, and if it gains market
success then it moves to Full.
why not make the smallest change we can, rather than alter the
existing, basic mechanism for entering standards track
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit,
such as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the
work cannot gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed
Joe Touch wrote:
However, such an editorial effort it expensive and I do not understand why
this
additional expense is needed. It was not needed for 25 or so years. And
now we
are more sensitive to expenses.
The set of people writing docs has increased substantially. The writing
--On Friday, 21 July, 2006 15:12 -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
However, such an editorial effort it expensive and I do not
understand why this additional expense is needed. It was
not needed for 25 or so years. And now we are more
sensitive to expenses.
16 matches
Mail list logo
