|
Hello again, Now as for the document itself. I really appreciate its purpose; encouraging Proposed-Standards-writers to advance their document replacing 3-tier system to 2-tier one is a good idea. However, in fact, this proposal in its current view really can't work effectively because of: In this case, as Brian Carpenter said during discussions of previous versions of this document, "unless we have a firm sunset date, the job will never be finished and in fifty years there will still be DS documents." (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65870.html) Considered this, removal of the sunset period is probably harmful; as nobody cared about progressing their DSs (see my previous message), they will continue to do this.Any protocol or service that is currently at the abandoned Draft Standard maturity level will retain that classification, absent explicit actions.
A reasonable question: whether such action won't be available after
2 years? Anyway, leaving the situation with DSs "as is" won't
result in something useful. As proposed before, 2-year sunset
period is OK; if nobody undertakes any steps to advance their DS to
FS during these 2 years, such DS is reclassified to PS.Another issue is removing the requirement for implementation reports. This must really result in low quality of FSs. As Bernold Adoba mentioned before, Today it is quite common within WGs to see conflicting claims about protocol implementations andI fully agree with the last sentence; implementation reports serve as some documentary justification of existing of implementations that suit all requirements of the spec. The following requirement for FSs seems unclear:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding smth., but this is not a requirement but
rather just statement. This introduces new difficulties to advancing PSs to FSs;
this hard-to-understand demand will mislead almost everybody, I
think.Also, the minimum period for existing on Standards Track of 6 month is not really sufficient to fulfill the following requirement:
Some words on STD numbers as well. Their initial purpose was to
provide clear reference point to FSs; RFC 1796 encouraged their use
to distinguish Standards from other RFCs. However, the experience
showed that they doesn't work (or work partly). The well-known
problem is what to do with STD number when FSs is recycled to PS.
Some recent proposals, such as written by John Klensin
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-std-numbers-01) proposed
assignment of STD numbers to all Standards Track RFCs, including
PSs. This, even solving aforementioned problem, decreases the
usefulness of STD numbers; but now we are not speaking about that
proposal. Russ' document leaves this question open; I think it
shouldn't. I really think STD numbers should be abandoned; they
just make a mess into the Standards Track. Another proposal should
be to put some identifier of maturity level in the STD number,
assigning one for all documents moving through the Standards Track
system, ie. STD P-xx, STD D-xx and STD xx (for FSs), where xx is
assigned to PSs only while all its successors retain it; but I don't
think such proposal will ever be adopted.Removal of requirement for annual reviews of PSs is a good deed, since nobody really suited to it after NEWTRK WG effort, except rare cases. There are also some minor defects in this draft, concerning Section 4 mostly; I don't want to mention them now. So, taking everything into account, I wouldn't like to see this document approved as BCP. Having a good idea, its realization isn't as good. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 05.05.2011 19:13, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels' <draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt> as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-06-02. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf