Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

SM <> Fri, 01 November 2013 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7391211E8110 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.577
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vy1QMCmjwHEN for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E5111E80E9 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA1MS5uP025037; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1383344891; bh=3y+cvDsr42RX5NvZpLxrbtzILZjULMykmKC9piv7UPY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=p+tR8wkmcGNFxWmH2t7ErJ6SzWIOj44PzHQin1H7JcyOHz8Ml6xU6LiO9L8tJ8zsD 9itPFQUszPsTSaVEEhacITVQNoUeV6v5lfrkOxu3Nb1DmhMJ89ZgXRRK762hwa5dMJ Dt7UIOoTIXeCS1Nq5JwarWkoZ/HS+SWZRxbDWf5U=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1383344891;; bh=3y+cvDsr42RX5NvZpLxrbtzILZjULMykmKC9piv7UPY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=B1oTnEpEFJCoRlZq7RzxtS36gPnjcX+f/qZaQnx9xXaEvpI1N1qtzGE/l0HXNkcwX oItekxoVgu7JXruAhercAMC9t3+/aj/Hs3XB7S3f+t06gHUe+UbERykxgmtrg3I8H6 i5dry+Slk909jpAu7cLMbN6UxPiw0gpdM/Vn1k5E=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:26:58 -0700
To: Olaf Kolkman <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:28:19 -0000

Hi Olaf,
At 11:06 31-10-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>      2.  I also wonder whether we shouldn't circulate the draft 
> more broadly, outside of the IETF, to request the comments.  Will 
> it accomplish what we want it to accomplish?

I'll comment on the above point as I think that it is a good idea.

The problem (as discussed initially) was that it was difficult for 
the target audience to understand what is a Proposed Standard because 
of the way it was characterized in RFC 2026.  The fix was to have a 
draft to clarify that.

For that fix to accomplish what we [1] want it to accomplish, it is 
good to get feedback from the target audience.  That target audience 
is outside the IETF.  In my opinion it would be help if the draft was 
circulated [2] more broadly, i.e. outside the IETF.  It entails 
reaching out to the people and asking them for feedback.


1. I am using the word "we" as it was easier.  It is not the royal "we". :-)

2. I understand that it may not be easy to do that.