On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is >>> always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want >>> to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially >>> baked? This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and >>> robust. If we like being in that room, that's fine. But it removes >>> the "IESG can put fuzzy stuff out as PS if it thinks that's the right >>> thing to do" option. >> >> Wouldn't such spec come with an applicability statement of sorts? (today, in practice?) > > That's a good point; probably yes. > > So if the text here can say something that allows a PS spec to *say* > that it's less mature, and that that's being done on purpose, my > concern is satisfied. Not the spec itself but an associated statement about it? > As a specific current example, I have the sense that the documents > coming out of the repute working group are specifying a protocol > that's somewhat less mature than what we usually do -- more comparable > to the 2026 version of PS than to this one. Yet I absolutely think > they should be PS, *not* Experimental. OK, somebody has to say it. Maybe we should have another state, something like draft standard.