On Tue, 2011-03-15, Martin Rex wrote: > Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> > >> > Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years >> > after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded >> > to Proposed Standard. >> >> 1. While the accounting ugliness of leaving these untouched is obvious, >> I am less clear about the practical trouble they cause. We should gain >> some public agreement that this is seriousness enough to worry about, >> and why. >> >> 2. Automatic reclassification strikes me as dangerous and likely to have >> serious unintended consequences. > > I don't understand the motivation about changing anything about > the status of documents that have already been published. > > Among the original complaints there were the two: > > - the IETF is confusing the non-IETFers about the standardization > with its three levels of document maturity > > - the bar for Proposed is too high and ought to be lowered. > > Unless the clear intent and IETF consensus is to add > > - mislead _everyone_ about the real document maturity of *ALL* > IETF documents, including all existing documents > > - penalize all folks did put effort into going to "Draft Standard" > by completely nixing their effort two years later. > > the status of the existing documents should NOT be touched by any new > rules for publishing documents as Proposed Standards. +1 > To make clear which documents were issued under the original regime > and which were issued under the new, there should probably be > an obvious gap in the number range (going to 5 digit or 6 digit numbers). -1 (simple sequentially increasing RFC numbers for all items is fine) > -Martin -- Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf