Re: how to get traction on an I-D

Hi Lisa

thanks very much for your reply.  It gives me a few things to chew on. 

I guess informational would fit best at the moment once we have a few 
reference implementations.



Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>> Hi.  Apologies in advance if this is the wrong group to send this.
>> Apart from writing an I-D, and maybe implementing proposed mods in a 
>> couple of agents, how does one proceed to get it down the track to 
>> being an RFC?
> What kind of RFC are you aiming for?  First step to getting an RFC 
> Editor stream Informational RFC is simply to submit it to them for 
> publication.  Their review board will look at it.  If it ends up an 
> RFC it will show as Informational with a disclaimer saying it's not an 
> IETF product.  For IETF stream documents, I'm the most likely document 
> sponsor when you're ready to request publication.
> Other steps might involve getting other implementors involved, and 
> getting people's opinions on what status it should have.  I'm guessing 
> you don't want a WG for this alone.  Sometimes it's possible to get an 
> existing WG to come to consensus to add something related to its charter.
> The current draft has "Standards Track" as its intended status.  My 
> evaluation of interest shown thus far is that there isn't enough 
> interest for Standards Track.  Anyway, Informational and Experimental 
> status are easier for individual submissions.  When asked to sponsor 
> an individual document on the Standards Track, I look for it to meet a 
> higher standard in some ways than a WG document to make up for the 
> lower consensus standards.  In particular, proven interoperability, 
> proven need, and little contention over the basic design.
> Lisa

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server -

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 21:26:05 UTC