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. Regards Adrien 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 - http://www.wingate.comReceived on Thursday, 11 September 2008 21:26:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:37 UTC