2.1. The First Maturity Level: Proposed Standard
The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they
remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1]. No new requirements are
introduced; no existing published requirements are relaxed.
The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they
remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1]. No new requirements are
introduced; no existing published requirements are relaxed.
The document doesn't actually say out loud there that the requirements for Proposed Standard have been considerably increased by IESG practice over the years, nor does it charge subsequent IESGs to return to a faithful reading of the actual text. You can infer it from the refrain ("stated requirements" and "published requirements"), but I don't think you could fairly call it explicit. You can certainly get that from Russ in bar or on a mailing list, but we normally try to write our documents such that you don't have to have shared a bar with the author to get their real intent.
If the IESG does not choose to follow-up that inference with action, we have effectively moved from a one step standards process pretending to be a three-step standards process to a one step standards process pretending to have two. That's hardly worth the electrons which have been spent in this argument.
My personal opinion for some time has been that we ought to recognize that the previous PS moved into "WG draft" years ago and that anything named an RFC should be recognized as something that market will consider a standard. (My own somewhat-tongue-in-cheek proposal was to make advancement completely automatic, barring a stated objection, but that went nowhere.) If we are going to try to move the goalposts for PS back and retain more than one maturity level with the label RFC, I think we'd have a better chance of success if we fess up that they were moved *and put into the document that the community wants the IESG to use those and only those for PS*. Without that, the real requirements for PS remain up to the IESG of the moment--a matter of lore rather than documented practice.
To add one final comment, I think what little consensus we have on this is was well characterized as "by exhaustion" in John's earlier note. It may be no less real for that, but let's not pretend to ourselves that this is anything but a much-needed removal of the requirement for annual review, along with a fond hope that the future may be different from the past.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf