I think its a good idea to readdress this. Part of the issue with the current
system, is that there is both no great benefit to advancing a standard to the
next level for the advocates, and no real downside to not advancing it. In
many cases, having gone through the pain of getting to RFC status, one is
unwilling to place their body in the firing line again. Any change to the
system should consider the real world implications and try and add in the
appropriate carrots and sticks.
One side note - MIBs. MIBs by their nature are actually collections of
mini-standards - the objects. Once an object is defined and published in a
non-transitional document (RFC), the OID associated with that object is pretty
much stuck with that definition. And that permanance tends to percolate up to
the collection of objects that make up a MIB.
I'd suggest only a single standards level for a MIB - stable - tied to a
specific conformance statement. Obviously, this is sort of a sketch of an
idea, but given the immutability of each MIB object, advancing a MIB is pretty
much impossible unless there are absolutely no changes.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf