On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>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 Have they been superseded or ignored?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. > I would like that to be possible, but I would settle for just being able to make Standard status feasible. One of the side effects of most drafts deadlocking at Proposed is that people don't want to let anything 'bad' go through and that often means something that people 'feel uncomfortable with'. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
