Hi, I generally support this proposal, but have some questions on Section 2.3, "Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels". I am both an author of several Draft Standards and have chaired working groups that have produced them. > Any protocol or service that is currently at the abandoned Draft > Standard maturity level will retain that classification, absent > explicit actions. Two possible actions are available: > > (1) A Draft Standard may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as > soon as the criteria in Section 2.2 are satisfied. What is the process for this? Is the IESG going to review all Draft Standards. Should authors and/or working groups propose a change of status as defined in the document? Something else? Most draft standards very likely meet most of the requirements listed in the document for Internet Standard. > > (2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as > a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard > document as Proposed Standard. I think this is unfair to the people who have done considerable work to get a document to Draft Standard. I hope that the IESG would only do this after giving a lot of notice to the authors, appropriate working groups, and the IETF community to give them the opportunity to request advancement to Internet Standard. I think this Section of the document needs to provide additional detail on how this should work. Regards, Bob _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf