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