On Mar 14, 2019, at 01:47, Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So Proposed standard is a standards document from the IETF, which > is to say that it’s an IETF standard, Yes. > or an Internet standard. No. That term has unfortunately been taken. But nobody notices if we simply don’t use it for PS level documents, and nobody will be confused. > While an Internet Standard is… an Internet Standard. Yes. > The capitalization of the S is more crucial here than in > IPsec. Or IPSec. Or IPSEC. The proper capitalization is a competence signal. You don’t have to send that signal. > And putting ‘Category: Standards Track' on the RFCs doesn't help. No, it doesn’t. > That’s a capital S! Title case. > 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. You express your confusion. I can’t blame you, but we’ll still need to express our disagreement. Standards for the Internet (which include both levels of maturity) are usually done by the IETF. > 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? Yes. And it has been for 7.5 years or so. > L. > > > I would be happy if the IETF retired. That, unfortunately, is an attitude that won’t help us achieve our goal. I’m not going to feed the fauna on this any further, but, yes, terms are important, and the fact that in our usage “Internet Standard” means something different than “Standard for the Internet” is indeed suboptimal. Changing the terms again would lead to even more confusion in the short term, but might improve things in the long term. That cost vs. benefit ratio is for anyone to ponder. Grüße, Carsten
