On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > That's an argument for _no_ maturity levels, then, not for two. > > Is there an implicit assumption here that more standards (presumably of poorer quality) is a good thing? Not on my part. I'm merely observing that, if the claim is that you can't alter deployed protocols, then there's no reason to say that we need two maturity levels, because in fact nothing will advance past the first stage anyway. Phillip's description of the state of affairs is consistent with what we actually see today in a three-maturity-level system: nothing moves past the first level. But if the problem is that you can't alter a deployed spec, then no matter how many levels we pare off past the first, nothing will move to those higher levels, because it's only the first level that counts. I'm not happy about this, note. I'm just making an observation about what is entailed by Phillip's description. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf