OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

Pekka Savola pekkas at netcore.fi
Tue May 20 16:04:14 CEST 2003


On Tue, 20 May 2003, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> (1) agree that moving from PS to full Standard is more
> likely interesting than moving from PS to Draft Standard,

Moving from PS to Draft typically seems to include a lot of tuning of the 
spec, including removal of features and adding a few new ones (to 
replace/enhance/augment the ones killed for instance), or clarifying ones 
(in such a manner that all the old implementation are not compliant).

If we went from PS to Full, the documents certainly would have to recycled 
at the PS stage far, far longer to ensure there are no glitches left.  In 
addition, requiring more than 2 interop implementations of each feature 
should be required if we're to call something a Standard (unless we 
redefined the way it is, and engrave the "good old standards" in a 
golden plaque).

> (2) agree that Draft Standard does NOT seem like a more
> impressive name than PS to anyone outside IETF (and
> it's been a while since someone has been confused about
> the difference between "draft standard" and "internet draft
> on the standards track" in my presence, but it has happened).

True.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
> Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track
> 
> 
> > Eric Rosen wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian> Secondly, this is a case where I think a simple first step may
> > > Brian> help quite a bit: simply merge Draft Standard and Standard
> > > Brian> into a single class, called Standard,  but with the criteria
> > > Brian> now used for Draft Standard.
> > >
> > > Brian> Arguments: remove a process step that we basically never use,
> > > Brian> and make the step up from Proposed Standard worth the trouble.
> > >
> > > Could you explain how this makes the step up from PS worth the trouble?
> >
> > Because you know that the effort of documenting the interoperable
> > implementations will be rewarded by immediately getting to the final
> > status, rather than just getting to an intermediate plateau (and one with
> > a very confusing name, since to outsiders it sounds like a step
> backwards).
> >
> >   Brian
> >
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list