On 1/24/11 10:37 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-03 was just posted. It reflects
much of the discussion on this thread over the last few months. In
particular, it embraces the changes put forward in the recent
proposal by Dave Crocker, Eric Burger, Peter Saint-Andre, and Spencer
Dawkins. Please take a look at the revised document, and provide
your thoughts.
Thanks, Russ.
A few comments:
1. It's not clear to me if this is quite correct in the Introduction:
Similarly, subsequent revisions to the
documents ought to be easier to publish, whether the document is
advancing on the maturity ladder or not.
As discussion later in the I-D reveals, we don't want to make it easy
for folks to publish subsequent revisions that are significant, we want
to make it easy to publish adjustments based on implementation and
deployment experience:
Experience with a Proposed Standard often leads to revisions that
clarify, modify, enhance, or remove features.
See also:
A specification may be, and indeed, is likely to be, revised as it
advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. When a revised
specification is proposed for advancement to Internet Standard, the
IESG shall determine the scope and significance of the changes to the
specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
recommended action. Minor revisions and the removal of unused
features are expected, but a significant revision may require that
the specification accumulate more experience at Proposed Standard
before progressing.
I suggest:
Similarly, it ought to be easier to publish revisions that
incorporate implementation and deployment experience, whether the
document is advancing on the maturity ladder or not.
2. I found this statement to be strange:
The intention of the two-tier maturity
ladder is to restore the requirements for Proposed Standard from RFC
2026.
Why "restore"? Have they been superseded or ignored? I suggest "retain".
3. I think there is a word missing here:
The rules that make references to documents at
lower maturity levels are a major cause of stagnation in the
advancement of documents.
Perhaps "The rules prohibiting references..."?
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf