Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

Hi Scott and John,

I don't see this as inconsistent with the current 2-stage proposal,
if the latter's omission of a requirement for independent interoperable
implementations for stage 2 is corrected.

I don't, however, believe that the problems are separable.
The bar for PS has crept up, IMHO, precisely because the bar
for DS/STD has appeared too high to be readily attainable.

So I see two ways forward that hang together:

1. draft-bradner-restore-proposed +
(draft-housley-two-maturity-levels + independent interoperable implementations)

2. draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01 (i.e. simply abolish
the second and third stages, and make interoperability reports optional)

I prefer #1.

Regards
   Brian

On 2011-01-30 11:39, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> I've previously expressed my opinion that proposals to muck with the
> number of steps in teh IETF standards process will no do anything
> useful (i.e., will not be effective) - JOhn and I have just posted
> what, to us, would be a prerequisite for amy process mucking proposal
> to succeed
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----
> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 	Title           : Restoring Proposed Standard to Its Intended Use
> 	Author(s)       : J. Klensin, S. Bradner
> 	Filename        : draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 6
> 	Date            : 2011-01-29
> 
> Restore the very low bar for Proposed Standard described in RFC 2026
> (BCP 9)
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 