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

[Ned Freed <[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.

Emphatic agreement on all points. I guess that makes me a hard-line sorehead
as well...

				Ned