Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, August 13, 2009 18:12 -0400 Tony Hansen
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks Dave.
> 
> Template comments:
>...
>      Link to Draft Standard interoperability report,
> 	[[ No report appears to be on file with the IETF. /d ]]
> 
> I'm not sure what to do here. This may be a tripping point for
> the IESG, and we may need to provide an interop report for any
> RFCs that are missing one.

I'd personally be inclined to take a hard line on this.  There
is no requirement for an interoperability report for Draft ->
Full.  None.  There is also no requirement, or even mechanism,
for a review of the prior interoperability report.  If some IESG
approved the document for Draft Standard, they made a definitive
decision that evidence of interoperability was sufficient.
There is no procedure for a current IESG to second-guess that
except by moving a Draft Standard document to Historic and
historically (sic) wide deployment and use is a bar against
doing that.

It is not YAM's job to either find documentation that the IESG
has misplaced or to generate documentation that may not have
existed in a time of more relaxed and informal procedures,
especially for something that is not subject to review as part
of YAM's work.
 
> Questions to the WG: Do we put in some sort of simple
> statement like what Dave has in brackets, assume that one
> isn't needed, and see if the IESG barfs? Or do we offer up
> front to provide an interop report in cases where one is
> missing?  We could state that one will be provided along with
> the revised draft.

We remove the entire item from the template and point anyone who
asks to what 2026 actually says.

Just my { hard-line, sorehead } opinion.

    john