I think this is correct for adding a feature. However, I could support an exception for removing a feature or a handling a straightforward errata.
Russ
On Mar 27, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> IMHO draft-housley-two-maturity-levels is in good shape. I have one
> clarifying question.
>
> In RFC 2026, Section 6.3 ("Revising a Standard") states in full:
>
> A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress
> through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a
> completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the
> Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which
> will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both
> versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements
> of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between
> the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the
> text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an
> Applicability Statement; see section 3.2).
>
> Do correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to imply that any revisions
> to an Internet Standard specification (e.g., to address errata) would
> force the authors to go back to the I-D stage, then Proposed Standard,
> then Internet Standard. Is that right?
>
> Peter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf