Dave: the issue is that PS was previously not seen as a finished product, now it has much more exalted status, but the criteria have not changed.
On May 6, 2011 11:09 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/6/2011 1:31 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>>> 1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards.
>>>
>>> What, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe will lower
>>> the quality of a Proposed Standard?
>>
>> The parts unmentioned in the document, in effect.
>>
>> It states:
> ...
>> The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they
>> remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1].
> ...
>> RFC 2026 essentially defines a PS document as being a first cut, likely to
>> change, and as such unsuitable for production deployment. In particular:
>
>
> You appear to be saying that the new document lowers quality by continuing to
> use the same basic criteria and qualifiers for Proposed that we've used for many
> years.
>
> Forgive me, but I do not understand how that logic works. How can the new
> process document lower quality by holding the established criteria for Proposed
> stable?
>
> It appears that your actual concern is not about the new document, but rather
> the existing process specification (RFC 2026).
>
>
> d/
> --
>
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> On 5/6/2011 1:31 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>>> 1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards.
>>>
>>> What, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe will lower
>>> the quality of a Proposed Standard?
>>
>> The parts unmentioned in the document, in effect.
>>
>> It states:
> ...
>> The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they
>> remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1].
> ...
>> RFC 2026 essentially defines a PS document as being a first cut, likely to
>> change, and as such unsuitable for production deployment. In particular:
>
>
> You appear to be saying that the new document lowers quality by continuing to
> use the same basic criteria and qualifiers for Proposed that we've used for many
> years.
>
> Forgive me, but I do not understand how that logic works. How can the new
> process document lower quality by holding the established criteria for Proposed
> stable?
>
> It appears that your actual concern is not about the new document, but rather
> the existing process specification (RFC 2026).
>
>
> d/
> --
>
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf