[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
  Web www.spinics.net

RE: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments

I wasn't discussing the point about whether there should be a process change or not. Rather, I don't think any process, existing or new, of changing the document type can be done in less than 12 months, and I don't think that such change in status will match any market needs for extra identification of active RFCs worthy of implementation.

Therefore essentially in many respects this discussion will achieve nothing.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 21 April 2012 01:38
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
> On 4/20/12 4:28 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> > Changing something from experimental to proposed standard in a
> > process that will probably take 12 months will be unlikely change the
> > number of people implementing and deploying an RFC.
> I'm going to take the liberty of mentioning that I spoke with Ron
> earlier today about this.  Basically what he's asking is that there
> be no process changes, and, I think, no policy changes, just
> that IESG members should be mindful about how to phase experimental
> stuff out when it's flopped.
> Personally, I think he's correct about both cruft and mindfulness
> and suspect that probably nearly everybody agrees with what he's
> saying, anyway, but unfortunately it was presented in a form that
> made it look like More Process.
> Melinda

[IETF Annoucements]     [IETF Obscurity Interest]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux]     [Pilates]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]

Add to Google