Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

["Russ Housley" <[e-mail]>]

>> This is a significant improvement from my perspective.  We need a
>> mechanism to implement it.  The mechanism does not need to be heavy
>> weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
>> allowing the community to support or challenge them.
>
>
> If I understand both your statement here and your comment in the hallway
> discussion, I suspect that the requirement would be satisfied by having
> various
> folk submit a form with some standard language on it, making an
> attestation
> along the lines of the language I submitted.
>
> Said more plainly:  Some people would need to claim that the developed or
> know
> of an independent implementation that conforms to the spec and works with
> other
> specs.
>
> Forgetting about the task of agreeing on the exact language, would this
> suffice?
>
> I guess the Last Call message would include something like:
>
>      The following individuals and/or organization
>      have stated that [...]:
>
>
> Yes?

I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
based on the specification in RFC <n>:

  - <a>
  - <b>
  - <c>
  - ...