Subject: how to get traction on an I-D

From: Adrien de Croy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:01:03 +1200

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?

I'm of course referring to

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-decroy-http-progress-04.txt

Regards

Adrien de Croy

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:50:17 -0700

On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote:

> 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

---

From: Adrien de Croy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:27:32 +1200

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:
> existing WG to come to consensus to add something related to its charter.
>