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
On 3/14/2011 5:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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 S
At 04:05 PM 3/14/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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 St
Hello,
2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter :
> 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
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
Brian
>
> playing devil's advocate here...
>
> Say someone submits a request for an existing DS to the IESG and it takes 6
> months (or 3 months) to get through the process, but only 2 months remain
> before the 2 year window is up (since this
On 3/14/2011 2:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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 reclassificatio
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> playing devil's advocate here...
>>
>> Say someone submits a request for an existing DS to the IESG and it takes
>> 6 months (or 3 months) to get through the proc
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter :
>> 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
>>
>
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 3/14/2011 2:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> 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
At 02:05 PM 3/15/2011, Brian Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> playing devil's advocate here...
>>
>> Say someone submits a request for an existing DS to the IESG and it takes
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
> > after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
> > to Proposed Standard.
>
> 1. While the accounting ugliness of leaving these untouche
On Tue, 2011-03-15, Martin Rex wrote:
> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> >
>> > Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
>> > after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
>> > to Proposed Standard.
>>
>> 1. While
On 2011-03-16 11:22, Martin Rex wrote:
> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
>>> after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
>>> to Proposed Standard.
>> 1. While the accounting u
On Mar 16, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> To make clear which documents were issued under the original regime
>> and which were issued under the new, there should probably be
>> an obvious gap in the number range (going to 5 digit or 6 digit numbers).
>
> Oh, have you any guess
On 3/15/2011 4:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's why my personal preference is what I already suggested -
just label them all as Internet Standard.
Classifying specs as full standards, when there is no evidence that the criteria
for Full are satisfied, is a good way to instantly de-valu
Hello all,
We reached the conclusion that the sunset period of 2 years for
advancing DSs to FSs or downgrading of them. However there are some
issues that should also be discussed, such as making references to DSs
during this period, DSs already in IESG processing, etc.
So, I propose to men
16 matches
Mail list logo
