RE: [newtrk] Session chair summary - implementation reports

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

> So I have something of an immediate request here - can
> we have a draft that defines minimum criteria for an
> implementation report, which the IESG could consider for
> use in the short term as a guideline? It's very hard to
> reject an implementation report for inadequacy when we have
> no visible guidelines beynd 2026.

I think this is an important point. If we're concerned
about "standards track", and, in particular, that not
many documents make the transition from PS -> DS, then
being clear about the elements of that trek seems important.

However, I think there's some disagreement about what
the minimum criteria might be.   Which of the following
are required?

* date(s) and author(s) of report (parts)
  (assertions of validity, if author disclaims knowing)
* identity of implementations (to what detail)
* assertions about independence of implementations (and
  licensing process for IPR)
* list of features tested
* success of interoperability for each feature
  identifying the implementations, or counting them
   or asserting that there are many

What else should be required?

How about if I update my draft to separate out the description
of "content of an implementation report" from the "format for
representing that content". 

Larry



.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html