On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: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.Is IESG really misreading "no known technical omissions with respect to the requirements placed on it"?
Read further to:
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended.The IESG has been working to the assumption that Proposed Standards will be widely deployed into all environments for a long time. That may well be an appropriate response to the deployment practice (heck, if "the internet runs on internet drafts" we're lucky that we don't have an IESG review step before i-d publication). But if the result of this exercise is that the bar for PS stays as-is and the bar for the second stage merges, we will retain what is a functionally a one-stage standards process. We can certainly live with that (we live with it now), but it means we are changing out a standard that doesn't accurately reflect what we do now for one that doesn't accurately reflect what we will do.
regards,
Ted
If the bar has been raised since the publication of 2026, might this actually be reasonable given that the Internet is much larger, more diverse, and more hostile than it used to be?Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf