Coex draft as BCP?

Hi,

The status we request is orthogonal to the document review. First we need to complete document review.

I am still researching which options are open to us. 

Without interoperability testing of multiple independent implementations, we cannot request standards-track advancement to Draft Status, and so far we have not been able to arrange a thorough test of the features and operations detailed in this document. If anybody is willing to work on staging the interoperability testing of some known implementations, that would be helpful. 

**It does not need to be the implementers that perform the testing.**

We could recycle at Proposed and walk away, but I personally don't like that option, and the ADs may not like that option, but we can try that route if WG consensus is to do so.

On a quick reading, RFC2026 seems to indicate that BCP is for the use of IAB and IESG, although "BCPs are meant to express community consensus" may qualify this document. 

I personally would like to advance the draft or publish as Proposed or BCP, since those require IESG review, and I believe such review from outside the WG is a good thing.

If it turns out the ADs or the IESG find these unacceptable, they will determine the appropriate publication level, or return the document to the WG for disposition.

dbh
---
David Harrington            
[email protected]           
co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: WG last call: Coex draft
> 
> 
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> > Well, look at section 1.3 for example.
> > I think we would do good to update this document to
> > reference the latest set of RFCs that you so proudly
> > announced a few hours ago.
> 
> Not only that, but the references need to be split into
> separate lists for normative and informative references.
> 
> //cmh
> 
> P.S.  I did not yet see a reply (from a WG chair or AD)
> whether the intended status of this document is BCP (or
> something else, i.e., informational or standards track).
> 
>