On Fri May 6 22:12:35 2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
> This suggests that perhaps we should rename "Proposed Standard" to > "Not a Standard But Might Be One Later," promote the PS published > under the overstrict rules to DS, and we're done. > > I'm not sure whether I'm serious or not. Whether you are or not.., the only way to do this is to stop calling them "RFC"s. Maybe we should have a "PROP" series for PS docs, and only give them "RFC" numbers later, when they progress.
This is not far off Scott Bradner's 2004 suggestion of "Stable Snapshots" of I-Ds.
It's also like the (much more versatile) labelling proposal Keith Moore made here.
Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf