Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-00

[Yoav Nir <ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like this proposal, but there should be a (relatively) easy process to advance from Experimental to Proposed, especially if implementation experience shows no need for bits-on-the-wire changes.

We should be able to say that for a particular experimental RFC there have been this many independent implementation, and they interoperate OK, and only so-and-so clarifications need to be added, and the document is ready for "Proposed".

On Jun 21, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

Russ,

 

I’d also like to think you for revisiting this topic.

 

I support the recommendation to eliminate the “Standard” maturity level, and also agree with your recommendation on Maturity Level 2 (similar to Draft Standard).

 

We need more thought on what to do with the other levels though.

 

In practice, we often see a document initial go to Proposed Standard, then go through a “bis” to enable clarifications and interop improvements.

 

Often these changes are too substantial to enable advancement to Draft, but they nevertheless represent an important advancement in status.   

 

I’d like to see some way that this advancement can be recognized formally. 

 

Also, in some areas (e.g. Transport) the first stage is publication of an Experimental RFC.  These documents are published with the understanding that implementation experience will be incorporated into a future revision.

 

So perhaps the hierarchy should be:

 

a.       Experimental. 

b.      Proposed Standard (e.g. a “bis”).

c.       Interoperable Standard/Draft Standard.

<ATT00001..txt>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf