RE: removing the milestones

Glen Zorn (gwz) writes:
> > These could be advanced, but it would take some minor work to do
> the
> > documentation necessary, and it's not clear that there's
> substantial
> > value in it.  
> 
> I find this an extremely interesting statement, esp. coming from a
> WG chair.  You seem to be saying that there is doubtful value in
> advancing a document beyond Proposed Standard, essentially
> dismissing the most of the IETF standards process as irrelevant.

We need people who are interested in doing the work necessary for
advancing those documents.  It's been months since I called to see if
anyone was interested in stepping up to do that work, and there's been
no response.

I'm not dismissing the standards process as "irrelevant."  Those are
your words, not mine.

What I did say was that it wasn't clear whether advancing the
documents (after so many years has passed) has any substantial value
for anyone consuming the documents.  I don't know that it does.

> This is particularly interesting (and somewhat distressing) since
> Draft Standard is, I believe, the only level that requires evidence
> of interoperability...

True.  And, as I said before, someone has to speak up to take
ownership of a document of interest, or it's just going to stay at
that maturity level forever.

In the meantime, it's just silly for us to have milestones listed that
expired five years ago.  I'd like to put down new dates for those, but
if there's nobody working on them, then there's no plausible date that
I can put on them.

-- 
James Carlson, IP Systems Group?               <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext