Earlier, Joel 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 Have they been superseded or ignored?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. > > Separately, the replacement of the requirement for verified interoperability > with the assumption of interoperability based on wide deployment > is an understandable compromise. I am not sure I like this change, > but I can live with it, which is good enough. > > I do like the more relaxed wording on the removal of unused features.
+1 to Joel's comments. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
