On 2011-09-07 10:12, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-07 00:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2011-09-07 09:35, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> ...
>>> 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.
>>
>> And who raised the bar? It wasn't the IESG, it was the market, and more
>> specifically the product managers and IT managers who adopted RFC
>> conformance
>> as their criterion.
>>
>> I'm a bit fed up with the IESG being blamed for this, rather than being
>> congratulated on adapting to it.
>> ...
>
> Well, if that's really what happened, then
> draft-housley-two-maturity-levels seems to solve the wrong problem.
The problem it is claimed to solve is an easier one: making it
more likely that people will do the work to progress *beyond* PS.
I don't see it as having the slightest impact on the quality or quantity
of PS documents. That is a different, and harder, problem. And that's
why I changed the Subject header; I like it when messages have a subject
header that describes the content, not the content of another thread
that finsihed a while back.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf