Subject: RE: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charter

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:48:18 -0500

At 07:41 PM 2/8/2004 +0200, [email-masked] wrote:
>Alternatively, we could keep going as we are going, taking 3 or more years
>to produce a protocol and wait until after we have a PS to expect folks
>to implement it.

Or, we could figure out how to fix the real problem (that it takes
3 years to get to PS) instead of applying a band-aid (WGS) that
will make it easier to live with that problem, but that make have
bad side-effects of its own.

Margaret

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:29:43 -0500

Margaret Wasserman writes:
>3 years to get to PS) instead of applying a band-aid (WGS) ...

But how does one decide when a draft has progressed to the point
where its ready for experimental implementation?  Given that a draft
shouldn't progress to PS without running code, when does the draft
become implementation-worthy?

I'm partial to the idea of naming the stages for what the reader 
can be expected to do with the document (developing standard,
experimental standard, deployed standard, historical standard,
deprecated standard), which seems to address this problem.

Thanks,
 Phil
.