Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 3 September 2011 01:31, Ned Freed wrote:

> > AFAICT the argument to move to full standard has not been made

> Well, I tried some days ago.  The interoperability reports for DS
> are rather old, but at least they do not mention "multipart/report
> not at the top level" issues:

> <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc1891-1894.txt>

> > full is about deployment, and that's harder to justify.

> If all these "significant" and "successful" in RFC 2026 4.1.3 are
> to be interpreted as "e.g., 4409bis", then I'd have no idea how
> to demonstrate a similar significance or success of RFC 3462...

> ...for 4409bis I could at least produce "significant" amounts of
> messages posted by me, or the "successful" publication of a BCP
> formerly known as draft-hutzler-spamops.

> Maybe you don't like "three steps" because you interpret RFC 2026
> 4.1.3 more strictly.  I consider the "third step" as last chance
> to fix errata and polish a good DS before it's seriously time to
> start something new and better at PS (e.g., 282?, 532?, 532?bis).

Frank, I honestly don't have a clue what you're driving at in any of this. I
was directly asked to give my opinion about whether a recycle at proposed or at
draft made more sense for this document and I responded. That's it.

All this stuff about moving to full standard seems to have come entirely from
left field, so unless some others step up and say they support attempting such
a move - which given the recent 4409bis experience I'd say has less than
snowball's chance in hell of being successful - I really don't see any point in
continuing this discussion.

				Ned