Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Scott O Bradner <[e-mail]>]

it looks so - maybe it would be good to have a pointer in this doc

Scott

On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> Scott -
> 
> Didn't RFC 5657 address your point 2?
> 
> The current proposal no longer requires this report during advancement, but it does not disallow it.
> I hope it's obvious that I believe these reports are valuable, but I am willing to accept the proposed
> structure, with the hope and expectation that  communities that are serious about producing and 
> refining protocols will be producing these reports anyhow.
> 
> RjS
> 
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> 
>> 
>> this is better than the last version but
>> 
>> 1/ I still see no reason to think that this change will cause any
>> significant change in the percent of Proposed Standards that move up the
>> (shorter) standards track since the proposal does nothing to change the
>> underlying reasons that people do not expend the effort needed to
>> advance documents
>> 
>> 2/ one of the big issues with the PS->DS step is understanding what
>> documentation is needed to show that there are the interoperable
>> implementations and to list the unused features - it would help a lot to
>> provide some guidance (which I did not do in 2026 - as I have been
>> reminded a number of times :-) ) as to just what process is to be
>> followed
>> 
>> could be
>> 	a spread sheet showing features & implementations
>> 	an assertion by the person proposing the advancement that the
>> requirements have been met
>> or something in between
>> 
>> Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

Scott Bradner

Harvard University Information Technology
Security | Policy, Risk & Compliance
[phone]
29 Oxford St., Room 407
Cambridge, MA 02138
www.harvard.edu/huit