On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:33 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
And, if you thought that was the right thing to do ...
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”.)
... you might or might not love https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01.txt
(NB: I'm listed as co-author, but IIRC John Loughney was the one who said, "screw it, we'll never train the rest of the world how we wish the IETF standards process works, let's just have standards and be done with it!". After that, the draft practically wrote itself).
As Carsten points out, we've taken half the steps to the 2006 no-maturity-levels proposal already. We just have to take the other half, if the community thought that was the right thing to do.
Spencer
