On 2011-03-16 11:22, 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 If we do the reclassification correctly, nobody will be misled. > > - penalize all folks did put effort into going to "Draft Standard" > by completely nixing their effort two years later. That's why my personal preference is what I already suggested - just label them all as Internet Standard. But in fact, the proposed bar for promotion from DS to Internet Standard is pretty low. I doubt that any deserving document will lose out. There are 85 DS documents today. If each IETF Area does its own bulk promotion, that averages at 12 documents per area - not an enormous job. > > > the status of the existing documents should NOT be touched by any new > rules for publishing documents as Proposed Standards. Disagree. If we don't reclassify, people will be puzzled for the next 50 years by the residual DS documents. > > 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). Oh, have you any guess how many tools will be broken by the RFC10K problem? (That is not a joke.) Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf