[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [newtrk] Reviewing state of PS and DS standards
Replying to three messages in one...
John Leslie wrote:
...
Might I suggest an ION stating an IESG procedure that in the absence of an implementation, deployment, or disuse report every
PS or DS due for IESG review shall be placed on a single agenda item to maintain them at the same maturity level for the
following 12 months?
I'm more motivated to actively encourage the community to post
implementation, deployment, or disuse reports as a matter of course.
I think if we could get that into our DNA, the rest would flow
as a matter of course.
John C Klensin wrote:
It has become clear to me during the last several days of discussion that we don't have a clear idea / consensus about what
"gating" means. And a critical path analysis might point the finger at places other than the IESG, while this "gating"
discussion starts with the IESG as the answer and works (IMO) backwards.
I think that is true, and I ask John Leslie to take account of it.
C. M. Heard wrote:
...
Previously, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I [ ... ] do not believe there were any signs of newtrk reaching
a consensus [on] what to do about those phenonema.
Despite some suggestions to the contrary, I would have to say that
I agree with Brian's assessment. Maybe one way forward would be
for the IESG to recharter newtrk with the specific mandate of
simply documenting what we actually practice.
Well, my latest update to draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique was made
in that spirit. From that exercise, I'm not convinced a WG effort
is really needed for this, but I agree it's worth finishing :-)
Brian
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html