Re: [iola-conversion-tool] "Intended std level" on Add/Edit screen

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cindy, Amy, Ole,

On 2012-02-22 13:55 Ole Laursen said:
> 2012/2/21 Cindy Morgan <[e-mail]>:
>> On the Add/Edit screen (e.g. https://trackerbeta.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp/edit/info/), was the "Intended status" field (in the production version) changed to "Intended std level" for a reason?  Because I read that as "Intended Standard level," but not all I-Ds/RFC are on the standards track.
> 
> Hm, the name of the underlying attribute changed and it appears that
> changed the form, too.
> 
> Regarding the name, I read it as "intended standardization level". The
> reason we're going with it in the database is that "status" is a vague
> word - for a draft/RFC we've consolidated several entities ending up
> with a bunch of different states/statuses so it ends up being
> important that we have descriptive names.
> 
> And it appears we have no good word for standards track maturity level
> + non-standards track maturity levels + BCP, so that's why it ended up
> being standardization level. Does that make sense?
> 
> I can easily change the form back to say intended status, but if you
> think it's okay, I'd prefer if the interface uses the same terminology
> as the database?

As Ole says, since we are moving in the direction of displaying many
different status fields (WG status, IESG status, RFC-Ed status, and
more (including the (Internet Std/Proposed Std/Informational/Experimental/...))
status, we need to be more explicit than saying just "Intended status".

Any appropriately descriptive term for the intended standardization level
is OK, as long as it can be understood and is distinct from all the other
status fields we show ...


Best regards,

	Henrik