Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 19:29 26-01-11, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>1/ I still do not think this (modified) proposal will have any real
>    impact on the number of "Proposed Standard" documents that move
>    to a (in this proposal, "the") higher level since I do not see
>    how this makes any significant changes to the underlying reasons
>    that documents have not progressed in the past - i.e., I see no
>    reason to think that this proposal would change the world much
>    (would not help, would not hurt)

If this draft is published, there may be more documents moving to the 
next level.  There has been some comments about stated requirements 
for Proposed Standard being restored.  It requires more than a BCP 
for that to happen.

In Section 2:

  "Reconsideration of the portions that were previously approved for
   publication as a Proposed Standard requires evidence that the
   unchanged features are causing harm to the Internet."

I gather that there won't be any requirement for interoperability.

That draft does not say which sections of RFC 2026 are being 
updated.  As I do not have any IETF experience, I'll defer to what 
the elders of the IETF have to say about BCP 9 if it ever becomes 
subject to interpretation. :-)

At 01:10 27-01-11, John C Klensin wrote:
>I think the change, and the incentives, might be reinforced by
>renaming "Proposed" to "Rough Preliminary Specification" or
>something else without "Standard" in its name, but that is a
>separate matter.

The constituency has a lot of authors of documents which are at 
"Proposed Standard".  A name change will face strong resistance 
unless it is at least at par with the current gold standard.

At 13:50 27-01-11, Doug Barton wrote:
>I've made this statement before, so I'll only touch on it briefly. 
>The world outside the IETF does not understand the difference 
>between our various flavors of "RFC" now. There

As it is probably the consensus of the IETF that the world inside the 
IETF understands the difference, it is not worth arguing about.

>3. As both an IETF participant and as a consumer of the standards we 
>create I still believe (as I've said previously) that what we need 
>is not an evolution, but a revolution; with different names for 
>things that more accurately reflect their status and intended use. 
>However, it's pretty obvious at this point that there is no broad 
>support for this position, so I won't waste more time on it.

A revolution is only possible if the world runs out of IPv4 addresses 
or if there is support from business constituency, whichever happens later.

Regards,
-sm