> that text is not derogatory, but a simply statement of fact. Sorry, but however you may try to talk your way out of it, a statement like "that technology may be unstable" is derogatory. > Until and unless the definitions of maturity levels are changed, that text > is not derogatory, but a simply statement of fact. I'm afraid that the facts as to whether a technology is stable are in no way dependent on the IETF's definitions of maturity levels. > If a WG agrees with you about a particular piece of technology, > they have three choices: Well, 4: they can issue the doc as a PS obsoleting the old PS. > If I writing a document that needed to reference a specification > that was as well-defined, mature, and stable as you posit, I'd > first try to get that specification advanced to the right > maturity level That's an interesting fact about yourself, but personally I'd prefer to spend my time doing something useful. > But the assertion you are making about a (e.g.) Proposed > Standard specification being stable, mature, well-defined, > widely-deployed, etc., is one that presumably should get some > community review Sure. The WG should not advance a doc to DS if it really depends on something which isn't stable. The WG needs to be aware of the facts, and should not be compelled to insert statements which they know to be false. > you should support this on your theory that it will create more arguments > and bog things down further. No, I don't think there's any need to do anything that creates more arguments and bogs things down further. I understand that there's no consensus on how to avoid the iceberg, but that doesn't mean I want to take the time to run experiments on more complicated ways to arrange the deck chairs. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf