Re: [GNAP] Human rights perspective on W3C and IETF protocol interaction

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/2022 6:15 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
> The core point I’m making here, using Dave’s list as a framing, is that (2) in the steps above is highly relevant to this discussion, so comparing things based solely on (1), which is how this thread started, is meaningless on its own. The process in (2) represents direction and intent. It’s just as dangerous to call an I-D "a standard" as it is to discount a stable WG draft in active development as “just another I-D”. There’s a wide gradient here applied by the status and group management in (2), and I argue that carries weight. There’s also a lot of context that isn’t formally captured, such as active development on the text itself. This is part of what the I-D expiration is meant to capture, but as we can see here, it’s highly imperfect.


+1 (definitely)



d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net