Russ,
I'd also like to think you for revisiting this topic.
I support the recommendation to eliminate the "Standard" maturity level, and
also agree with your recommendation on Maturity Level 2 (similar to Draft
Standard).
We need more thought on what to do with the other levels though.
In practice, we often see a document initial go to Proposed Standard, then
go through a "bis" to enable clarifications and interop improvements.
Often these changes are too substantial to enable advancement to Draft, but
they nevertheless represent an important advancement in status.
I'd like to see some way that this advancement can be recognized formally.
Also, in some areas (e.g. Transport) the first stage is publication of an
Experimental RFC. These documents are published with the understanding that
implementation experience will be incorporated into a future revision.
So perhaps the hierarchy should be:
a. Experimental.
b. Proposed Standard (e.g. a "bis").
c. Interoperable Standard/Draft Standard.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf