> A periodic call for comments, say at 2 and 5 years out, with those > judged to be still useful moving up the ladder, > for example? > > I understand that "objection based processing" was not the most polite > way to word this in my draft, > and I'm sufficiently chastened to change it in the next version. But > I think any system we base on a periodic > assessment like the above has to have a default of "advance". The > current Proposed standards > get a lot of scrutiny and generally are pretty good. If we don't do > "default advance", we are adding > friction to the common case, where they should move forward. While this is true as far as it goes, I'd like to point out a good example of where "the common case" may be less common than we'd like to think. ACAP, RFC 2244, is a Proposed Standard put out in 1997. There's a core of us who think it's a good protocol and a useful one, but it's had very scanty implementation. At this point, even most of its champions think it might as well go to "Historic". On the other hand, it suffers far more from apathy than from antagonism, and should it have routinely come up for any sort of review that had a default answer of "advance", it would almost certainly have been advanced. I doubt there would have been people who really cared to fight to block it because hardly anyone uses it. None of us ever tried to move it along the track because we knew (know) that there's not much point. There's no doubt in my mind that, much as I like it, ACAP should not be at a higher current maturity level than PS. There's some value in saying that there have to be people who have the energy to push a rock at least a little way up a hill in order to make something advance, to show that there's some critical mass of support and implementation. Otherwise, we may wind up with a bunch of little known and lesser deployed "pet rocks" (to strain a metaphor) that get advanced by default, providing little service or benefit to the Internet. Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf