Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[RJ Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

Earlier, Joel Halpern wrote:
> It seems to me that this proposal strikes a good balance in making an effort
> to improve the situation regarding our document track.
> 
> Regarding the particular clause:
> 
>> On 1/24/2011 1:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> 2. I found this statement to be strange:
>> 
>>     The intention of the two-tier maturity
>>     ladder is to restore the requirements for Proposed Standard from RFC
>>     2026.
>> 
>> Why "restore"? Have they been superseded or ignored? I suggest "retain".
> 
> I think the use of the word "restore" is very important. Over the years, 
> our informal requirements and our sense of what was needed for Proposed Standard
> have moved up noticeably. This reflected a number of factors, all of them
> driven as best I can tell by good intentions.  Restoring the lower bar for PS
> is probably the most direct benefit this proposal can have on our work.
> 
> Separately, the replacement of the requirement for verified interoperability
> with the assumption of interoperability based on wide deployment
> is an understandable compromise. I am not sure I like this change,
> but I can live with it, which is good enough.
> 
> I do like the more relaxed wording on the removal of unused features.

+1 to Joel's comments.