On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
<evnikita2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we
>> can get consensus soon.
>>
>> Just a couple of remarks on
>> 5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels
>>
>> 1) Probably there should be a statement that all existing
>> Internet Standard documents are still classified as Internet Standard.
>> That may seem blindingly obvious, but if we don't write it down,
>> somebody will ask.
>>
>> 2) More substantively,
>>
>> "Any protocol or service that is currently at the Draft Standard
>> maturity level may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as soon as
>> the criteria in Section 2.2 are satisfied. This reclassification is
>> accomplished by submitting a request to the IESG along with a
>> description of the implementation and operational experience. "
>>
>> I'm a bit concerned that this doesn't scale, and we will be left
>> with a long tail of DS documents that end up in limbo. One way to avoid
>> this is to encourage bulk reclassifications (rather like we did a bulk
>> declassification in RFC 4450). Another way is to define a sunset date,
>> e.g.
>>
>> Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
>> after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
>> to Proposed Standard.
>>
> I'm personally not sure whether such operations will be acceptable.
> If there is a Draft Standard, it means that it is more mature that
> Proposed Standrad. Therefore downgrading DSs to PSs does not seem a
> good idea personally for me. It is better to say that DSs should
> remain in this maturity level until properly advanced to FS, obsoleted
> or moved to Historic status.
All our experience shows that unless we have a firm sunset date, the job
will never be finished and in fifty years there will still be DS documents.
If nobody cares - the document will be downgraded. What's the problem
with that? It will still be on the standards track.
(Automatic downgrading to Historic would be a different matter.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf