[ih] "The Internet runs on Proposed Standards"

[Dave Crocker]

The only interesting statement about the IETF and its processes is that 
any universal statement about them is wrong.

Like end to end arguments, the IETF is a flexible environment, with 
predilections rather than rigid absolutes.

The specifications are developed in a variety of ways, from fully within 
the IETF, to the IETF's doing barely more than a basic technical review 
and mild refinement. We even have a study suggesting the best IETF 
specifications are those that come into the IETF after they are already 
successful.

The requirements for reaching Proposed vary quite a bit, from pretty 
cursory to needing two implementations.  An open source version is 
always useful but pretty much never required.  It shows technical 
feasibility and, perhaps more importantly, commitment to promoting the 
specification. Arguably, this is reasonable. Arguably, it is arbitrary.

It is quite common for successful IETF specifications to be Proposed 
(or, for older ones, Draft) rather than Full.

Simplistically, Proposed minimally means there has been demonstrated 
interest in the work, reasonable review, and not much more.

Equally simplistically, Full minimally means that there is continued 
interest, a useful degree of deployment, and a constituency feeling that 
Full will be more helpful, such as for enabling inclusion in some strict 
contracting processes.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social