Hello, 2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>: > There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we > can get consensus soon. > > Just a couple of remarks on > 5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels > > 1) Probably there should be a statement that all existing > Internet Standard documents are still classified as Internet Standard. > That may seem blindingly obvious, but if we don't write it down, > somebody will ask. > > 2) More substantively, > > "Any protocol or service that is currently at the Draft Standard > maturity level may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as soon as > the criteria in Section 2.2 are satisfied. This reclassification is > accomplished by submitting a request to the IESG along with a > description of the implementation and operational experience. " > > I'm a bit concerned that this doesn't scale, and we will be left > with a long tail of DS documents that end up in limbo. One way to avoid > this is to encourage bulk reclassifications (rather like we did a bulk > declassification in RFC 4450). Another way is to define a sunset date, > e.g. > > Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years > after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded > to Proposed Standard. > I'm personally not sure whether such operations will be acceptable. If there is a Draft Standard, it means that it is more mature that Proposed Standrad. Therefore downgrading DSs to PSs does not seem a good idea personally for me. It is better to say that DSs should remain in this maturity level until properly advanced to FS, obsoleted or moved to Historic status.
> > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
