Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-pkix-cmc-05.txt

["tog" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry, your right. So then what is the issue regarding advancing this
particular effort.

----- Original Message -----
From: Warwick Ford <WFord@verisign.com>
To: 'tog' <todd.glassey@www.meridianus.com>; <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-pkix-cmc-05.txt


> Todd:
>
> RFC 2026 says of Proposed Standard:
>
>    Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
>    required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
>    Standard.
>
> The requirement for 2 implementations is for Draft Standard - the next
> stage.
>
> Warwick
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tog [mailto:todd.glassey@www.meridianus.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 6:15 PM
> > To: ietf-pkix@imc.org; Paul Hoffman / IMC
> > Cc: POISED-WG
> > Subject: Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-pkix-cmc-05.txt
> > My feeling is that the protocol model is robust enough so
> > that it deserves
> > to get advanced, however we have these POISED requirements,
> > so maybe if we
> > do not advance it then we should at least mark it as "automatically
> > advanced" as soon as the advancement criteria is met -poof its done.
> >
> > This leaves it up to the sponsors to actually make sure that
> > their efforts
> > are successful and that they have two impliementations of
> > their beast as per
> > the RFC2026 requirements. But it also enables that any technology
> > specification should fast track through approval if it
> > satisfies the staging
> > requirements in 2026. I think this is a really good idea, myself.
> >
> > This effort might actually take a change to RFC2026, but is
> > likely that also
> > that the WG Chairs can agree that within PKIX such a status exists. Yo
> > Warwick and Stephen, does this work for the groups purposes?.
>