> > I think that's not really addressing the core of Dave's concern, which > isn't that the repetition is unnecessary (which would be a matter of > taste), but that it's actually harmful, in that future changes could > leave us with two divergent definitions of "Internet Standard". > > On this, I'll note that we're already somewhat along that path, as > 6410 quoted text from 2026 in its definition of "Internet Standard". This IMHO is an argument to consolidate. If I don’t get it right (with some high layer IETF experience) then how would an external consumer. Let’s put a consolidated 2026/6410 IETF Standards characterization in this document and create clarity. (I would be helped with being pointed out those small things) I want one document to point at when people ask me ‘what is the difference between proposed and Internet standards’. For the people that ask for that difference it’s the characterization that matters. For those that want to know what the processes are… well, they can dive deeper. The target audience of this document is not only the IETF is what I am saying. > Perhaps you have a suggestion for different wording, Dave, that will > address your concern while still addressing mine? I’d be happy to incorporate (also see my note to SM that contains an argument: we want to be able to generically say that Proposed standards are good enough for market, except when they are not). —Olaf
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail