So Proposed standard is a standards document from the IETF, which is to say that it's an IETF standard, or an Internet standard. While an Internet Standard is... an Internet Standard. The capitalization of the S is more crucial here than in IPsec. Or IPSec. Or IPSEC. And putting 'Category: Standards Track' on the RFCs doesn't help. That's a capital S! Perhaps actual Internet Standards should be given over to a different organisation - the Internet Standards Organisation, or ISO, say, so that it's clear than an IETF standard is not a Standard, because only ISO does Full Actual Capitalized Standards. Getting rid of Draft Standard lessened confusion with internet-drafts, which could be considered as draft Draft Standards. Now, internet-drafts can only be considered to be proposed Proposed Standards, at least when they're not being claimed to be Internet standards. Is this an improvement? L. I would be happy if the IETF retired. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________ From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> To: Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2019, 3:33 Subject: Re: IETF blog post on ACME On Mar 13, 2019, at 16:38, Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I would be happy if the IETF retired the distinction between Proposed > Standard, Draft Standard and Internet Standard. RFC6410 Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels. R. Housley, D. Crocker, E. Burger. October 2011. (Format: TXT=12619 bytes) (Updates RFC2026) (Also BCP0009) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6410) We already got rid of Draft Standard at the beginning of the decade. Both Proposed Standard and Internet Standard are IETF standards documents, or standards for short. If you want to talk about the “Internet Standard” maturity level, “Full Standard” is acceptable vernacular as well. (Don’t ever use “standards-track” outside IETF… Very confusing. Sounds like “tenure track”, as in “not yet quite a standard”.) Grüße, Carsten
