Re: Comments on draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt

[Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>]

Fred Baker wrote:
> I would like to believe that a well documented interoperability test
> constitutes DS qualification; the current DS qualification sets the
> bar somewhat higher than that, and I note that few documents actually
> achieve that, even though we can daily see implementations
> interoperating in the field at PS.

Some data to Fred's point:

By RFC, not by STD (obviously):

Status	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
PS	102	119	71	105	103	131	169
DRAFT	6	6	2	4	7	7	3
STD	3(*)	2	0	8*	3	0	1


(*) 3 in 1999 were SMIv2 6 in 2002 were SNMP.

These are rough based on 10 minutes of scripting I did back in March.  I believe there are two reasons for the huge gap between PS and DRAFT:

 - it's difficult to get there (interop requirements, picking out
   uncommonly used features, etc)
 - nobody wants or needs to do the work (what GM in her right
   mind would want her experts working on something that neither
   generates new features nor fixes product bugs)

If Iljitsch's proposal is that the IESG "makes a call" based perhaps on somebody's request with some modest effort to demonstrate that a spec is ready for the next step, I think that actually would be a fine two-step approach.

Eliot

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf