Barry,
[skipping to the core of the suggested changes]
3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards
A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community.
NEW
3.2. Characterization of IETF Internet Standard Specifications
A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community.
The IESG, in an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks, confirms
that a document advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
The request for reclassification is sent to the IESG along with an
explanation of how the criteria have been met. The criteria are:
(1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
(2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
(3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
increase implementation complexity.
(4) If the technology required to implement the specification
requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
separate and successful uses of the licensing process.
After review and consideration of significant errata, the IESG will
perform an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks on the
requested reclassification. If there is consensus for
reclassification, the RFC will be reclassified without publication of
a new RFC.
In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last Call period, the
IESG shall make its final determination and notify the IETF of its
decision via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. See
Section 6.1.2 of RFC 2026.
A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
END
I observe this is mixing characterization with process. I have been very careful to only touch the characterization in this document.
When I wrote the text in the draft I started from 6410 which says:
The characterization of an Internet Standard remains as described in
RFC 2026 [1], which says:
An Internet Standard is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the
specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
Internet community.
That is the second sentence in the first paragraph from section 4.1.3 that talks about Internet Standards. The first sentence is an introduction sentence. Below is the full section from 2026 for reference:
4.1.3 Internet Standard
A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community.
A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
When I constructed the text in the draft I figured that the second paragraph was more of a process detail that could be left out. While that first sentence seems to be relevant for providing the context.
So really the question is whether the characterization is really out of sync with 2026/6410?
Personally I feel your suggestions are rescoping the drafts purpose.
—Olaf
|
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail