On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > 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. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was your assumption. I do wonder if it's an assumption held by many in the discussion. > 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. As far as I can tell, the principal reason any specifications move beyond Proposed is that they are widely deployed and their limitations become apparent. So I think you can alter deployed protocols, but only if the protocols or their implementations are seen to be sufficiently broken. (Which could lead one to conclude, from a perverse point-of-view, that some flaws should be left in at Proposed Standards so that they'll have to be fixed later, so that we can get more Draft and Full Standards published.) Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf