On 1/24/11 11:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > It seems to me that this proposal strikes a good balance in making an > effort to improve the situation regarding our document track. > > Regarding the particular clause: > > On 1/24/2011 1:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > ... >> 2. I found this statement to be strange: >> >> The intention of the two-tier maturity >> ladder is to restore the requirements for Proposed Standard from RFC >> 2026. >> >> Why "restore"? Have they been superseded or ignored? I suggest "retain". > > I think the use of the word "restore" is very important. Over the years, > our informal requirements and our sense of what was needed for Proposed > Standard have moved up noticeably. This reflected a number of factors, > all of them driven as best I can tell by good intentions. > Restoring the lower bar for PS is probably the most direct benefit this > proposal can have on our work.
Aha: so restore operationally. That makes sense. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
