Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 09:44 PM 10/25/2010, John Levine wrote:
>I am happy to agree to what the draft currently says. We've sliced
>and diced this many times over the years, and this seems very close to the
>least-unpopular view. That's the best we can hope for, imho.

I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent implementations just to have an ID I was presenting be considered to become a WG item.

That bar is just WAY too high.

That said, I think the only part I'm concerned about with your proposal is allowing Internet Standards to reference Proposed Standards. Given that they can change so much - or more likely - they can have parts of them that just aren't ever implemented, but still have one or more of these un-implemented parts that is a critical to the Internet Standard.

I guess if this clears the logjam of all the other issues, I'm willing to agree to this.

James


+1

R's,
John


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

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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]