RE: removing the milestones
"Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
James Carlson <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: ... > > I'm not dismissing the standards process as "irrelevant." That's nice to hear. > Those are > your words, not mine. Note that I wrote "You seem to be saying..."; less an attribution of meaning than a somewhat oblique query thereof. > > 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. Just to be fair, there seems to be a _very_ thin line between lacking "substantial value" and irrelevance. > >> 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. OK, what work needs to be done on the documents (aside from the MIBs which probably need editing to comply w/the new boilerplate, etc.)? > > In the meantime, it's just silly for us to have milestones listed > that expired five years ago. True. > 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. Hope this helps, ~gwz Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext