Re: capturing the intended standards level, Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt> (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Julian,
At 22:12 09-05-2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
rfc2629.xslt allows specifying the intended maturity in the XML source...:

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#rfc.section.12.1.p.2>

...but it's only metadata in the XML source. Maybe we should add it to the ID boilerplate in the future?

I'll ignore details such as authors running an ASCII version of their draft through Id-nits. Quoting Alexey:

"Sometimes references get reclassified during IESG review and this causes downrefs."

The issue can occur at the IESG evaluation stage. With the new RFC Editor Model, it's unlikely to occur during AUTH48.

If intended maturity is viewed as a mechanical issues and what you suggested fixes 80% of the problem, it may be worth a try. One could also argue that the IESG might see a value in having a reference reclassified (things you need to read to implement this specification).

Instead of trying to capture the intended standards level, you could simply approve publication as Experimental. The author gets a RFC number. The IESG does not have to repeat the Last Call. Obviously, authors will lobby against that. :-)

If you would like a glimpse of the outside world, read the thread at http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2011-May/005514.html

Regards,
-sm


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]