Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt> (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> To quote from draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00 (paraphrasing newtrk).
> 
>   4/ there seems to be a reinforcing feedback loop involved: vendors
>      implement and deploy PS documents so the IESG tries to make the  
>      PS documents better
> 
> This is the core issue, which far from addressing, the proposal tries  
> to discard the feedback loop, stick its fingers in its ears, and sing  
> la-la-la-I'm-not-listening.

   Please excuse the hyperbole -- Dave's just trying to get our attention.

> The fact remains that vendors treat PS maturity RFCs as "standards".  
> By reverting to the letter of RFC 2026, this will undoubtedly  
> increase confusion - indeed, it's apparent that much of the deviation  
> from RFC 2026 has been related to this very confusion.

   Nothing we put in a rfc2026-bis will change this. Nothing we put in
a rfc2026-bis _CAN_ change this.

   If we want to change this, we need to start putting warning-labels
in the _individual_ RFCs that don't meet a "ready for widespread
deployment" criterion.

   (I am speaking neither for nor against two-maturity-levels here:
warning-labels need to happen if we expect to change implementors'
expectations of PS RFCs.)

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>