Olaf, Scott, Apologies for a late reply on this (I was on vacation after the IETF). But thank you for writing this draft. My general comment is that the draft makes what in my mind is an accurate correction to our documents, aligning the documents to the current reality. I'd be happy to take the document forward. In fact, I think we need to make this change even if we made other, more long term changes. There is at least one ongoing effort right now that has the potential to reclassify a large set of Proposed Standard RFCs that form the basis of widely used technology. These types of efforts can have a relatively big effect on the standards status of the most commonly used RFCs. Do we want to do more? Can we do more? Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the original mode of operation, i.e., making PS RFCs truly early and somewhat untested specifications. I am personally opposed to that on the following grounds. First, it would not change the fact that a large part of Internet technology today runs on PS RFCs, and Olaf's problem with getting these RFCs recognised would continue. Second, while I think we need to keep adjusting the level of review performed by the IESG and in IETF Last Call (we sometimes overdo it), I think broad review is actually useful. But enough about my opinions. What do the rest of you think? In terms of specific text, I also wrote a few observations, below. These are purely personal comments. First, I think you assumed this but never made it explicit. While the new characterisation recognises the often final role of PS RFCs, it does not take away the possibility of publishing Internet Standard specifications. Can this be clarified? > In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC202] the IESG > has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs and thus > RFC 2026 section 4.1.1 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed > Standards. I'd prefer saying "the IETF review processes Proposed Standard RFCs have evolved". And leave the details to Section 2. > 2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards Review > In response, > the IESG strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically > operating as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the > IESG to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the > standards document. That is part of it, but I think the situation is more complicated than that. The world changed around us, and suddenly Internet was big business, global, and we got more careful about impacts to it. The process has evolved, including the number of steps in the ladder. Review practices in general have changed quite a lot, we now have a fairly broad review of RFCs. Progression has also varied, mostly downwards. But as noted, it also seems very much affected by specific initiatives. Here's what I'd say: Initially it was assumed that most IETF technical specifications would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with a relatively early Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard then, finally, to Internet Standard (see RFC 2026 section 6). Over time, for a number of reasons, this progression became less common. At the same time, the review for Proposed Standard RFCs was strengthened. This strengthening was partially a response by the IESG for the above, and in part a consequence of the growth in the importance of the Internet and broader interest in reviewing new Internet technology. At the time of this writing, the IETF operates as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the standards document. The result is that IETF Proposed Standards approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review. Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from other standards development organizations. In fact, the IETF review is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to the cross-area technical review performed in the IETF. Jari