On 6/20/10 6:01 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 20/Jun/10 11:53, SM wrote: > >> This proposal removes Draft Standard and Internet Standard and replaces >> it with Interoperable Standard. I won't quibble over the choice of the >> name yet. > > If there are two levels and the first one is "Proposed Standard", then > the other one ought to be "Accepted Standard", "Official Standard", or > something that truly reflects such change (which usually does not affect > its interoperability or security, as Yaron said.) Here's an idea: 1. The first level is simply "Request for Comments". Once an RFC is published, we start to gather comments. Naturally, we need to write a process document that specifies in greater detail the kinds of comments we are requesting -- i.e., regarding implementation, deployment (the real meaning of "running code"), security as observed in the real world, manageability, etc. 2. The second level is "Internet Standard". Once we have gathered comments, we go through a "bis" process to incorporate all of that feedback into an improved specification. We obsolete the original Request for Comments and go on with our lives. We still accept comments (errata etc.) about the Standard, but don't make any substantive changes to it (unless we rev the protocol version). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf