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]

 



At 16:20 30-05-2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
So, here is my a proposed alternative:

1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make that happen, and how to deal with the increased number of RFCs.

The annual review provides an alternative to deal with the increased number of (non-historic) RFCs. A "no substantive objection" clause might enable the removal of "drive-by" RFCs.

The IETF can then focus on non-historic RFCs, i.e. specifications that are relevant to current discussions. Or else, there can be an automatic reclassification to Historic if an implementation report has not been produced within a year of the publication date.

What's been missing during the discussion of this draft is a practical way to deal with known issues.

2.2(b)(iii) - I would prefer that this be amended to "All unused 'MUST' requirements will be changed to 'SHOULD' requirements." If deployment is interoperable and a feature is unused, it means that the feature was not actually REQUIRED for interoperability. I object to this as it stands.

That's one way to deal with RFC 2119 creep. I'll go one step further. If there is a significant number of implementations that do not implement a SHOULD, the feature can be removed. The resulting specification might be easier to implement once the amount of requirements are reduced.

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]