Re: two independent implementations

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Tony Hain <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Lars,
> 
> As I understand it, the characterization was correct.

   Try though I may, I can't stretch it to "correct".

   In fairness to James, though, it was _not_ false, just misleading.
(After all, it led me to a thoroughly inaccurate assumption: that the
ruling and the suggestion were about the same issue.)

   Assuming the minutes are correct (by definition, an appropriate
assumption), the _ruling_ was that the I-D _could_not_ be adopted
because it was out of scope in the Charter.

   The suggestion had to do with what would make Lars comfortable in
proposing a change in the Charter (which could not be accomplished that
day in any case). _One_thing_ he suggested was documenting multiple
implementation if they existed.

   James, of course, is perfectly entitled to raise the question of
whether an AD should even _consider_ whether a spec is sufficiently
detailed to enable two interoperable implementations without being
supplemented by out-of-band communications with the author(s).

> The level of the bar you appear to be setting is appropriate for
> progressing an ID out of the WG,

   Actually, I don't agree the "multiple implementations" bar for
Proposed Standard is _ever_ appropriate...

> but completely insane for evaluating a personal submission for
> becoming a WG item.

   (Thus, I'd consider it also inappropriate for that evaluation.)

   But recall, the _ruling_ was that it was out of scope -- not whether
the I-D was adequate for adoption by _a_ Transport WG as a WG draft.

   (I find it a bit distressing that some WGs don't think their Charter
places any limits on what they may adopt as a work item. I'm pretty
sure this is explained in WGC training sessions. Does it need to be
repeated at a WGC meeting every IETF?)

> In the abstract, requiring multiple interoperable implementations
> of personal drafts essentially codifies that the IETF process is
> irrelevant...

   It would be _entirely_ appropriate if the Individual Submission
was seeking Draft Standard status.

   May I suggest that our problem may be the RFC2026 "time-in-grade"
requirements? Perhaps the IESG should be trusted to publish an RFC
as Draft Standard _without_ going through the whole process twice?

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>