11.09.2011 5:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-09-11 13:26, Eric Burger wrote:
So should we move to a one-step process?
There is a detailed proposal for that at
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01.txt
This draft is what actually matches reality. I'd better consider
publishing it rather than draft-housley-two-maturity-levels, unless the
latter or other similar proposal can demonstrate that it will find the
way to affect the understanding of people whom RFCs are aimed to (which
is "a Standards Track RFC is a Standard; maturity level doesn't
matter"), predominantly implementors, and the real-life reality (which
is one-step process) effectively (if the don't want to fit themselves to
this understanding and this reality).
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
I don't think the arguments have changed much since 2006.
Brian
On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Advancing a spec is done for marketing, political, process and other
reasons. E.g., to give a spec more legitimacy. Or to more clear
replace an older one. Nothing wrong with that.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf