Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 7:28 PM -0400 7/12/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or >> Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG has >> at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a document may >> move to Standard (which replaces Draft Standard and Internet Standard) >> or Historic if its implementation and deployment warrant this. The >> IESG publishes a short note explaining the rationale when changing >> designations. > > Without a very explicit set of rules for the PS -> S transition, this is > not much better than what we have today. Protocol developers will still > want to get "their" protocol into the S state, regardless of demand from > vendors or customers. We need to ask what "problem" might be solved, by having an additional maturity level, beyond Proposed? The problem needs to be something that is actually useful to solve. As I said at the plenary (and before) my own favorite is our serious lack of tracking, to determine what IETF work actually gets used. We have no regular, formalized method for assessing success or failure. Hence it would be useful both to us and to the rest of the Internet community, to have a status that acknowledges that an IETF standards effort has reached "substantial" community adoption and use. We can quibble about the criteria for "substantial" separately. The key point is having a status that is determined by market penetration, rather than technical details. Proposed is for the technical work. Full is for market success. By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit, such as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the work cannot gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants moving to Historic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf