Dave: the issue is that PS was previously not seen as a finished product, now it has much more exalted status, but the criteria have not changed. On May 6, 2011 11:09 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > > On 5/6/2011 1:31 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: >>>> 1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards. >>> >>> What, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe will lower >>> the quality of a Proposed Standard? >> >> The parts unmentioned in the document, in effect. >> >> It states: > ... >> The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they >> remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1]. > ... >> RFC 2026 essentially defines a PS document as being a first cut, likely to >> change, and as such unsuitable for production deployment. In particular: > > > You appear to be saying that the new document lowers quality by continuing to > use the same basic criteria and qualifiers for Proposed that we've used for many > years. > > Forgive me, but I do not understand how that logic works. How can the new > process document lower quality by holding the established criteria for Proposed > stable? > > It appears that your actual concern is not about the new document, but rather > the existing process specification (RFC 2026). > > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > 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
