|
Dear all,
Thanks for this important, which I support. In section 2, I would add that only a few protocols moved from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard, even if those protocols were widely deployed in the Internet. This proves the points that: 1. the specifications were stable 2. the community deemed unnecessary to upgrade to Internet Standard (for the sake of upgrading, i.e. without some specifications improvements/changes/errata integration) Or maybe this is covered by "for a number of reasons" in "Over time, for a number of reasons, this progression became less common? Reading this draft, I wonder: why would someone still want to go for Internet Standard, since PS is "mature", "as mature as final standards from other standards development organizations"? Maybe you want to expand on this. Editorial: OLD: The result was that IETF Proposed Standards approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review.NEW: The result was that IETF Proposed Standards approved over the last decade or more have had extensive reviews. OLD: RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents. This document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by providing a new characterization Proposed Standards. NEW: RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents. This document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by providing a new characterization of Proposed Standards. Regards, Benoit The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Characterization of Proposed Standards' <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-03.txt> as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-10-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents. This document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by providing a new characterization Proposed Standards. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. . |