Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

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

 



At 19:29 26-01-11, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
1/ I still do not think this (modified) proposal will have any real
   impact on the number of "Proposed Standard" documents that move
   to a (in this proposal, "the") higher level since I do not see
   how this makes any significant changes to the underlying reasons
   that documents have not progressed in the past - i.e., I see no
   reason to think that this proposal would change the world much
   (would not help, would not hurt)

If this draft is published, there may be more documents moving to the next level. There has been some comments about stated requirements for Proposed Standard being restored. It requires more than a BCP for that to happen.

In Section 2:

 "Reconsideration of the portions that were previously approved for
  publication as a Proposed Standard requires evidence that the
  unchanged features are causing harm to the Internet."

I gather that there won't be any requirement for interoperability.

That draft does not say which sections of RFC 2026 are being updated. As I do not have any IETF experience, I'll defer to what the elders of the IETF have to say about BCP 9 if it ever becomes subject to interpretation. :-)

At 01:10 27-01-11, John C Klensin wrote:
I think the change, and the incentives, might be reinforced by
renaming "Proposed" to "Rough Preliminary Specification" or
something else without "Standard" in its name, but that is a
separate matter.

The constituency has a lot of authors of documents which are at "Proposed Standard". A name change will face strong resistance unless it is at least at par with the current gold standard.

At 13:50 27-01-11, Doug Barton wrote:
I've made this statement before, so I'll only touch on it briefly. The world outside the IETF does not understand the difference between our various flavors of "RFC" now. There

As it is probably the consensus of the IETF that the world inside the IETF understands the difference, it is not worth arguing about.

3. As both an IETF participant and as a consumer of the standards we create I still believe (as I've said previously) that what we need is not an evolution, but a revolution; with different names for things that more accurately reflect their status and intended use. However, it's pretty obvious at this point that there is no broad support for this position, so I won't waste more time on it.

A revolution is only possible if the world runs out of IPv4 addresses or if there is support from business constituency, whichever happens later.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
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]