08.06.2011 10:58, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Jun 8 05:57:15 2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/7/11 11:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
And, more to the point I think, to greatly decrease the quality of RFCs
published. Perhaps that's OK, but we need pretty strong consensus that
it's the right thing to do, and I haven't seen that consensus in the
Last Call discussion.
All of the above may be true. I personally think that the best thing
that could happen in some sense is to "decrease the quality" of
Proposed Standard RFCs, but that's certainly a controversial view.
And I think it's worthy of an independent discussion. So, at the very
least, we either need to agree on this as a topic for this document
or remove it.
[ . . . ]
The best proposal I've seen - and I'd note that I can't recall now if
this is Keith Moore's or Scott Bradner's, to my shame - is that of
marking up specific I-D documents as being a "Stable Snapshot".
To my mind, this will override the basic rule of RFC 2026:
********************************************************
* *
* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft *
* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *
* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
* with an Internet-Draft. *
* *
********************************************************
whereas you propose making I-Ds almost Standards Track. As it was
discussed before, there is an evidence of leaving PSs without any
action/progress; introducing "Stable Snapshots" there might occur
"Stable Snapshots" left without any action, like PSs. But PSs are RFCs
at least and I-Ds are "nothing-as-per-2026". Adopting this proposal
might result in implementators claiming "we implement "Stable Snapshot"
of the Internet-Draft", which is unacceptable, IMO.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
This proposal seems to have the following benefits:
a) It satisfies the two paragraphs above in a non-conflicting manner.
That is, it provides everything that RFC 2026's PS was intended to
without being an RFC, with all that that moniker currently implies.
b) It's fairly obvious, in my view, how to start to use the new grade,
and how we might adapt to it in a smooth manner. Working Groups,
authors, etc would be able to start to use it in a fairly ad-hoc
manner, without the kinds of flag day changes to process that
two-maturity-levels seems to imply.
So if anyone has the patience for another I-D thrown into the soup,
I'm willing to [re]write this one up, assuming the original
instigator[s] of the proposal don't wish to.
Dave.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf