Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

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

 



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 Have they been superseded or ignored?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

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