--On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:03 -0500 Dean Willis <dean.willis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > Automatic expiry, as you propose, is easy. But given the fact > that long-lived PS have essentially become "standards", I'd > like to make a counter-proposal -- semi-automatic advancement. > > We set a 3-year life-cycle for Proposed Standard, Draft > Standard, and Standard. On the 3rd anniversary of any state, > the RFC Editor polls the IESG (which might seek community > input). If anybody is actually developing from the document, > the document, it advances to the next standards-level or > remains a "full standard", and the RFC Editor edits in any > posted errata and republishes (whether as a new RFC no. or a > "version" of the original RFC number is open). If nobody is > using it, it goes to "historic". Such a poll should be pretty > easy; one post to the IETF list, and a 2-min discussion on the > telechat. While this is an interesting variation, the general idea of semi-automatic promotion is not exactly new. See, e.g., http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-newtrk-promotion from 2006. It may not surprise you to know that the idea is more controversial than might first appear. One reason appears below... > When I say "developing from" the document, I don't mean "using > the protocol specified by the document in a static > deployment", but "referencing the document in new deployments, > or actively trying to revise the protocol therein". > > I'm guessing FTP would probably qualify as one of the things > that would move from "standard" to "historic". That would come as an interesting surprise to the ftpext2 WG and several of the developers who are active there. That WG, while not as active as some of us would like, is definitely alive and kicking under a fairly recent charter. I suggest that the fact that you (and presumably lots of the community) didn't know that such a WG existed and was doing work, and hence that FTP is being "developed from" is symptomatic of part of the problem with your proposal (and even the earlier one). Accidentally deprecating which was being actively deployed and developed because not enough of the right had the patience to read announcements on the IETF (or IETF-Announce) lists would be a really unfortunate development. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf