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

[Frank Ellermann <[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