thank you - clarity does help but such an effort will not remove the need for this document imo
Scott On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> wrote: > Olaf, John, Scott, > >> In fact, going back to the language of RFC2026 for Full (now Internet) >> Standard. It confirms that popularity (significant implementation) is one >> necessary but not sufficient criterium. > > Sorry. I was careless when I wrote about the effort. I didn't mean to suggest > that we have an effort to classify standards merely based on popularity. What > I meat that we have an effort to move a particular set of specifications to > Internet Standard, and will use the usual criteria when deciding whether the > documents are ready. While that particular set of specifications happens to > be popular, that was just an observation, not a (sole) reason of moving them > forward. > > Hope this clarifies. > >> I would hope that any concerns about technical maturity or significant >> benefit to the Internet community are taken into account when making the >> decision. If it is the case that members of the community assess that a >> specification lacks interoperability that should be sufficient grounds to >> not advance until data proofs otherwise. > > Yes, of course. > > Jari >
