Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[Scott Brim <[e-mail]>]

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?

> 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.