Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>]

On 9/4/2013 11:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
>>>> always more mature than that -- we can't go back.  Do we *really* want
>>>> to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
>>>> baked?  This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and
>>>> robust.  If we like being in that room, that's fine.  But it removes
>>>> the "IESG can put fuzzy stuff out as PS if it thinks that's the right
>>>> thing to do" option.
>>> Wouldn't such spec come with an applicability statement of sorts? (today, in practice?)
>> That's a good point; probably yes.
>>
>> So if the text here can say something that allows a PS spec to *say*
>> that it's less mature, and that that's being done on purpose, my
>> concern is satisfied.
> Not the spec itself but an associated statement about it?

There was a proposal to provide an alternative way of publishing 
applicability statements, in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04 (now 
expired).

>
>> As a specific current example, I have the sense that the documents
>> coming out of the repute working group are specifying a protocol
>> that's somewhat less mature than what we usually do -- more comparable
>> to the 2026 version of PS than to this one.  Yet I absolutely think
>> they should be PS, *not* Experimental.
> OK, somebody has to say it.  Maybe we should have another state,
> something like draft standard.

There were a couple of proposals to provide a way of saying "the working 
group thinks they're finished, but lets hold off on PS until they see 
how the protocol works". The one I co-authored was at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00, Scott Bradner's 
was at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00, in 
Section 5. Both are now expired.

Perhaps those drafts would be helpful background for folks thinking 
about this? (especially for folks who were too busy doing protocol work 
to follow NEWTRK? :-)

Spencer