RE: PS Characterization Clarified

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hey Olaf,
 
Thanks for stubbornly pushing on with this.
 
Comments (sorry I haven't read the thread to see if others have already made
these comments)...
 
Abstract
   This document clarifies the description of the review performed on
   and the maturity level of IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and updates RFC
   2026
Clarifies the description found where?
Review performed by whom?
 
Probably replace as...
   RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF
   Proposed Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those
   documents. This document clarifies those descriptions and updates
   RFC 2026 by providing a new characterization Proposed Standards.
 
---
 
Section 1
 
OLD
  standard maintenance procedures
NEW (maybe?)
  procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents
END
 
I'm sure you did not mean that the procedures are standard.
I think you did not intend to limit the discussion to Standards.
 
---
 
Section 2
 
   clarity of the standards document
 
Prefer "Standards Track document"
 
---
 
Section 2
 
   over the last decade or more have had extensive review.
 
...by the IESG?
...by or on behalf of the IESG?
 
---
 
Section 2
 
   Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards
   should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from
   other standards development organizations.  In fact, the IETF review
   is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to the cross-area
   technical review performed by the IESG.
 
I wonder whether you should add
 
...a position that is further strengthened by the implementation and running
code that is often present before publication as a Proposed Standard.
 
---
 
Section 3
 
   Section 3.1 updates RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1. Section 3.2 is a verbatim
   copy of the characterization of Internet Standards from RFC 2026
   Section 4.1.3.
 
Suggest...
 
   Section 3.1 of this document replaces RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1.  Section
   3.2 of this document is a verbatim copy of the characterization of
   Internet Standards from RFC 2026 Section 4.1.3 and is provided for
   convenient reference.
 
---
 
Section 3.1
 
   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation.
 
You could add 
 
... and may be tracked and reported as described in [RFC6982]
 
---
 
Section 3.1
 
Two paragraphs seem to enjoy some duplication in their final sentences.
 
   A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
   design choices, is well-understood, has received significant
   community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to
   be considered valuable.  However, as with all technical standards,
   further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the
   specification in the future.
 
and
 
   A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are
   of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
   However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
   be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
   when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
   at scale is gathered.
 
---
 
Section 4
 
   While commonly less mature specifications will be published as
   Informational or Experimental RFCs,
 
Maybe...
 
   While less mature specifications will  commonly be published as
   Informational or Experimental RFCs,
 
---
 
Section 4
 
s/ e.g. means of an IESG statement./ e.g., by means of an IESG statement./
 
---
 
Cheers,
Adrian
 
 
 
 
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Olaf
Kolkman
Sent: 13 September 2013 15:57
To: IETF list
Cc: SM Moonesamy; John Klensin; Barry Leiba; Scott O Bradner
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
 
 
Colleagues
 
[I have added a number of people who were active in the discussion previously to
the CC, my apologies if that is bad etiquette but I wanted to make you
explicitly aware of this.]
 
 
Based on the discussion so far I've made a few modifications to the draft.  I am
trying to consciously keep this document to the minimum that is needed to
achieve 'less is more' and  my feeling is that where we are now is close to the
sweetspot of consensus.
 
 
This is the summary of these changes:
*   Added "Updates 2026" and added Sean's initial"
 
*   Copied the whole characterization pararaph for Internet Standards
   from 2026, instead of only the line that is the actual
   characterization itself.
 
*   Added the Further Consideration section based on discussion on the
   mailinglist.
See:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-01.txt
 
For diff:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-01
.txt
 
 
--Olaf