Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

["Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[e-mail]>]

Although I do sort of also agree with Scott, I think it is one step in the right
direction. So please seen a sponsor and get it published.

Bert

On 10/26/10 4:48 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>> I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this
>> proposal or dropping it
> I do not think this proposal fixes any known problems
>
> the major reason (imo) that technology is not advanced along the
> standards track is because there is no need to do so.
>
> someone labors for a while to get a proposed standard published and
> people start to use it (if they did not start at the Internet Draft stage)
> soon about anyone that has a need for the technology has implemented it and
> it is being used by customers all over the globe
>
> just what is the reason that someone would take time from working on new
> technology to do the work to advance the proposed standard?  it is unlikely
> that all that many more people will implement or use the technology
> so what is the point?
>
> in addition, the IESG acts as if the proposed standard will be the last step
> in the publication process (or at least reviews IDs as if this were the case)
> so we have all the benefits of the cross area review (this making the proposed standards
> about as good as one could without requiring interoperable implementations at the
> first stage (i.e. bringing back running code))
>
> so I say drop it and live with the fact that rfc 2026 does not paint an accurate
> picture of the current one step standard process
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>