On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:05 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, October 29, 2010 12:20 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan > <HKaplan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 27, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> >> That's why I think we need a different set of labels, e.g. >> >> Protocol-Quality. We need a statement about the perceived >> quality of the protocol described in the document. (Is this >> protocol well-designed for the anticipated use cases, or does >> it have significant flaws (including security flaws)?) >> Applicability. We need a statement about the current >> applicability of the protocol described in the document. (Is >> ... > > Hi. > > It is difficult to imagine how these sorts of idea would work in > conjunction with RFCs given that those are explicitly archival, > never-changing documents and your suggestions seem to imply > evolving classification and comment systems. well, of course those classifications wouldn't be in the RFCs themselves (any more than our current maturity levels are). and it's quite natural that the various measures of quality/relevance/maturity of an RFC will fluctuate over time. > However, a number of similar ideas --including effectively > replacing Standards-Track Maturity levels with more descriptive > text and finer-grained comments were incorporated into a > proposal to the NEWTRK WG in 2005-2006. I think it is safe to > suggest that the reasons why the proposal never went anywhere > remain controversial, but you might find it interesting > recreational reading: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/ thanks for the pointer; I'll take a look. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf