Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 09:44 PM 10/25/2010, John Levine wrote:
> >I am happy to agree to what the draft currently says. We've sliced
> >and diced this many times over the years, and this seems very close to the
> >least-unpopular view. That's the best we can hope for, imho.

I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was 
asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent 
implementations just to have an ID I was presenting be considered to 
become a WG item.

That bar is just WAY too high.

That said, I think the only part I'm concerned about with your 
proposal is allowing Internet Standards to reference Proposed 
Standards. Given that they can change so much - or more likely - they 
can have parts of them that just aren't ever implemented, but still 
have one or more of these un-implemented parts that is a critical to 
the Internet Standard.

I guess if this clears the logjam of all the other issues, I'm 
willing to agree to this.

James


>+1
>
>R's,
>John
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf