Re: Updating the rules?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From the draft:
   1.  Rename PS as Preliminary Standard.

I have often confused the order between "Proposed" and "Draft" standard.
[In my view, one needs to "draft" a standard before you can "propose" it,
but in the IETF, you "propose" first, and then "draft" it.]
So I would like to suggest that the name for the standards at each step must clearly indicate
their maturity level and where the standard is on the ladder.

With a two-step process, naming the first step "Proposed", "Preliminary" or "Draft" and the second stage "Full" works well. With a three-stage process, I think we need
better names for the first two stages.

If we stick with the three-stage process, then perhaps the names
	"Preliminary Standard"
	"Intermediate Standard"
	"Full Standard"
might be used.

- Philip


On 5-Jul-07, at 03:29 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:

I posted draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-00.txt at
Russ Housley's request. Obviously, discussion is very much
wanted.

    Brian

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rfc2026- changes-00.txt

   This document proposes a number of changes to RFC 2026, the basic
   definition of the IETF standards process.  While some of them are
definite changes to the rules, the intention is to preserve the main
   intent of the original rules, while adapting them to experience and
   current practice.



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]