exec summary, but comments inline: I am in favour of two maturity levels. >>>>> "James" == James M Polk <jmp...@cisco.com> writes: James> 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.
James> I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was asked by an James> AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent implementations just James> to have an ID I was presenting be considered to become a WG James> item. But, that's just wrong, regardless of 2 or 3 maturity levels. This AD has just created a 5 maturity level system! (ID without interop, ID with interop, PS, DS, FS). Do they really know what they asked for? This is perhaps the fundamental problem. James> That bar is just WAY too high. James> That said, I think the only part I'm concerned about with your proposal is James> allowing Internet Standards to reference Proposed Standards. Given that they James> can change so much - or more likely - they can have parts of them that just James> aren't ever implemented, but still have one or more of these un-implemented James> parts that is a critical to the Internet Standard. James> I guess if this clears the logjam of all the other issues, I'm willing to James> agree to this. I agree with you, but I think we can work this out. I am in favour of two maturity levels. (see I can top-post and inline post at the same time!) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf