At 05:01 20-06-10, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
pay to source routing decreases over time. There is no reason why a
new RFC aimed at reviewing a mature spec would need to reduce its
maturity level, if it accomplishes the current requirements for
third level. I hope this point will be made clearer.
In theory, major clean-ups are done for the Draft Standard. The
third level is about significant implementation and successful
operational experience. There is no reduction in maturity level for
a clean-up.
At 07:41 20-06-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Well, they do not /always/ require it.
It's an unpublished guideline followed by authors to enter the
publication loop.
That said, the fact that they often do and that we've lived with the
reality of that for a long time could make it interesting to
simplify things significantly:
1. Have the current requirements for Draft be the entry-level
requirement for a standard -- do away with Proposed, not Draft.
2. Have a clear demonstration of industry acceptance
(deployment and use) be the criterion for "Internet Standard" (ie, Full.)
What should be done if there isn't significant deployment and use?
At 08:45 21-06-10, Martin Rex wrote:
I would prefer if the IETF retains the third level and puts an emphasis
on cutting down on protocol feature bloat when going from draft to
full standard.
That could be added as a requirement. It may turn into a significant
effort and produce the same results as the current situation.
At 08:57 21-06-10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Here's an idea:
1. The first level is simply "Request for Comments".
That would not fit as an intended status.
At 10:46 21-06-10, John Leslie wrote:
That's news to me: I can't recall any recent discusses calling for
operational experience before publishing as Proposed Standard.
It's an expectation that the authors have accepted and not a DISCUSS topic.
In truth, there are interlocking reasons why advancement beyond
Proposed Standard is so difficult -- but I'd like to call attention
to one particular reason: the IESG is overworked.
Look at any bi-weekly agenda.
Count the pages in the I-Ds.
Yes, they do end up getting a lot of work.
Glance through some of the questions raised. Even if you think
the majority of them are spurious, documents _do_ reach the IESG
in a state which essentially precludes implementation working only
from the document.
Yes.
At 11:09 21-06-10, Bernard Aboba wrote:
So perhaps the hierarchy should be:
a. Experimental.
"Experimental" could be used to get a stable version published. Does
the fact that there are more "Proposed Standard" RFCs compared to
"Experimental" RFCs suggest anything?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf