On 1/24/11 10:37 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-03 was just posted. It reflects > much of the discussion on this thread over the last few months. In > particular, it embraces the changes put forward in the recent > proposal by Dave Crocker, Eric Burger, Peter Saint-Andre, and Spencer > Dawkins. Please take a look at the revised document, and provide > your thoughts. Thanks, Russ. A few comments: 1. It's not clear to me if this is quite correct in the Introduction: Similarly, subsequent revisions to the documents ought to be easier to publish, whether the document is advancing on the maturity ladder or not. As discussion later in the I-D reveals, we don't want to make it easy for folks to publish subsequent revisions that are significant, we want to make it easy to publish adjustments based on implementation and deployment experience: Experience with a Proposed Standard often leads to revisions that clarify, modify, enhance, or remove features. See also: A specification may be, and indeed, is likely to be, revised as it advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. When a revised specification is proposed for advancement to Internet Standard, the IESG shall determine the scope and significance of the changes to the specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the recommended action. Minor revisions and the removal of unused features are expected, but a significant revision may require that the specification accumulate more experience at Proposed Standard before progressing. I suggest: Similarly, it ought to be easier to publish revisions that incorporate implementation and deployment experience, whether the document is advancing on the maturity ladder or not. 2. I found this statement to be strange: The intention of the two-tier maturity ladder is to restore the requirements for Proposed Standard from RFC 2026. Why "restore"? Have they been superseded or ignored? I suggest "retain". 3. I think there is a word missing here: The rules that make references to documents at lower maturity levels are a major cause of stagnation in the advancement of documents. Perhaps "The rules prohibiting references..."? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf