Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> writes:
    >> I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was
    >> asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2
    >> independent implementations just to have an ID I was presenting
    >> be considered to become a WG item.
    >> 
    >> That bar is just WAY too high.

    Andrew> I agree, but I see precious little evidence so far presented
    Andrew> that the two-maturity-levels proposal under discussion will
    Andrew> solve that problem.

    Andrew> If the problem we need to solve is that it's too hard to get
    Andrew> an ID published as Proposed Standard, then we should tackle
    Andrew> that.  The problem in that case does not need tweaking of
    Andrew> standards levels and so on, but hard rebukes of WGs (and,
    Andrew> frankly, IESG members) who insist on making that publication
    Andrew> hard.

Given a finite amount of resources, if we reduce the number of levels,
it seems that we might have more resources left to deal with reducing
the time. 

If advancing from PS to step-two is easier, then maybe the "quality" of
a PS could go down.  I am also not convinced, but I prefer to try this,
since in effect, it's just documenting current practive anyway.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [e-mail] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.