Dave,
In pragmatic terms, as odd as it might seem, that is almost explicitly
NOT what
the working is chartered to do.
"Full" standard is really about community acceptance, rather than
being about improving the specifications. For YAM, the focus in
writing the charter was specifically NOT to make any interesting
changes. Anything that seems to call for interesting changes is
required to /disqualify/ the specification from further consideration...
My view of the standards ladder advancement in IETF is that it was
always a mixture of recognizing community acceptance and deployment
success, removing crud (unimplemented features), and yes, even some
document improvement.
In any case, if you believe that the work was useful when the "Full"
label was available, I presume that was because the label would
communicate to the world that the document is very stable, widely
deployed, and so on. Would the work be useful if there is just another
label "Internet Standard" but you explained the status of the work in
words in the beginning of the document?
Jari
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
