On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 07:49:44AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> 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. > > The current proposal specifies a second maturity level that does not > permit changing the technical specification. Yes, I know. I fail completely to see why anyone would ever do the work for such movement of maturity level. The proposal seems to me to be something along the lines of giving gold stars to protocols with people who are willing to do the busywork. I don't have any special objection to the proposal, and I don't really have strong feelings about whether it goes anywhere. But I don't believe it will change things very much, and it feels to me more like a bureaucratic improvement than something that helps IETF participants and consumers of IETF protocols. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf