On Fri May 6 22:12:35 2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
> This suggests that perhaps we should rename "Proposed Standard" to
> "Not a Standard But Might Be One Later," promote the PS published
> under the overstrict rules to DS, and we're done.
>
> I'm not sure whether I'm serious or not.
Whether you are or not.., the only way to do this is to stop calling
them "RFC"s. Maybe we should have a "PROP" series for PS docs, and
only give them "RFC" numbers later, when they progress.
This is not far off Scott Bradner's 2004 suggestion of "Stable
Snapshots" of I-Ds.
It's also like the (much more versatile) labelling proposal Keith
Moore made here.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
