At Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:03:50 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2008-01-22 11:24, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > As a procedural matter, I agree with Scott and John. This > > document should not be considered for advancement at this > > time nor until such time as there is real evidence of > > widespread consensus. > > Actually, I agree too, but I also agree with Russ that the > discussion needed something noticeable to trigger it. I agree with Scott that this is not an appropriate use of Last Call. > > As a substantive issue, renaming PS and DS to Preliminary > > and Deplyable strikes me as a terrible idea. Whatever the > > merits of the current names, they are the ones we have and > > changing them now will only create confusion. Deployable > > is a particularly bad choice since PSs are regularly > > deployed. > > I will listen to the consensus view on this, of course. I think this has the burden backwards: there needs to be strong consensus to make major changes, not just weak opposition. > I think we have to recognize that the original roles > intended for PS and DS have been changed in practice, > and that may be hard for newcomers to appreciate. Yes, but I don't think your renaming helps that. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf