Hi Julian,
At 22:12 09-05-2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
rfc2629.xslt allows specifying the intended maturity in the XML source...:
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#rfc.section.12.1.p.2>
...but it's only metadata in the XML source. Maybe we should add it
to the ID boilerplate in the future?
I'll ignore details such as authors running an ASCII version of their
draft through Id-nits. Quoting Alexey:
"Sometimes references get reclassified during IESG review and this
causes downrefs."
The issue can occur at the IESG evaluation stage. With the new RFC
Editor Model, it's unlikely to occur during AUTH48.
If intended maturity is viewed as a mechanical issues and what you
suggested fixes 80% of the problem, it may be worth a try. One could
also argue that the IESG might see a value in having a reference
reclassified (things you need to read to implement this specification).
Instead of trying to capture the intended standards level, you could
simply approve publication as Experimental. The author gets a RFC
number. The IESG does not have to repeat the Last Call. Obviously,
authors will lobby against that. :-)
If you would like a glimpse of the outside world, read the thread at
http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2011-May/005514.html
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf