| Per John’s suggestion, adding informational and BCP, which I think are just other terms for things below in a sense.
AFAICT, this suggests the set below may be robust - welcoming others’ inputs, though.
Joe On Jan 5, 2025, at 7:26 PM, touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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 and informational
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 and BCP
actively in widespread use
may proceed to legacy
Note - I don’t think the difference between proposed standard and standard above is far off from current use. Note that PS doesn’t require multiple implementations as defined above, just the INTENT.
Standard does, though. - 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
---
|
