Hi, all, AFAICT, the problems we keep discussing appear to be the result of trying to present these two by a single term, so let’s not. See below for a different approach. Joe ==================================== PROPOSAL: we should separate protocol and document security. IMO, we need to include the following phases of a protocol: - experimental not sure whether it will proceed to standard may stay here forever or proceed to not recommended - proposed standard intended for widespread use, but not yet actively in widespread use may proceed to standard or go straight to legacy - standard actively in widespread use may proceed to legacy - legacy was a standard but either fell out of active use or was replaced by a newer protocol - not recommended dangerous to use a protocol can go from any of the first four to “not recommended” at any time if (and only if) it is deemed hazardous IMO, documents have only two phases: - current (without a marking) - revised by X (when a new document replaces an older one) the extent to which a “revised by X” document is of immediate use depends on the *independent* state of the protocol it describes ---
