At 19:29 26-01-11, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
1/ I still do not think this (modified) proposal will have any real
impact on the number of "Proposed Standard" documents that move
to a (in this proposal, "the") higher level since I do not see
how this makes any significant changes to the underlying reasons
that documents have not progressed in the past - i.e., I see no
reason to think that this proposal would change the world much
(would not help, would not hurt)
If this draft is published, there may be more documents moving to the
next level. There has been some comments about stated requirements
for Proposed Standard being restored. It requires more than a BCP
for that to happen.
In Section 2:
"Reconsideration of the portions that were previously approved for
publication as a Proposed Standard requires evidence that the
unchanged features are causing harm to the Internet."
I gather that there won't be any requirement for interoperability.
That draft does not say which sections of RFC 2026 are being
updated. As I do not have any IETF experience, I'll defer to what
the elders of the IETF have to say about BCP 9 if it ever becomes
subject to interpretation. :-)
At 01:10 27-01-11, John C Klensin wrote:
I think the change, and the incentives, might be reinforced by
renaming "Proposed" to "Rough Preliminary Specification" or
something else without "Standard" in its name, but that is a
The constituency has a lot of authors of documents which are at
"Proposed Standard". A name change will face strong resistance
unless it is at least at par with the current gold standard.
At 13:50 27-01-11, Doug Barton wrote:
I've made this statement before, so I'll only touch on it briefly.
The world outside the IETF does not understand the difference
between our various flavors of "RFC" now. There
As it is probably the consensus of the IETF that the world inside the
IETF understands the difference, it is not worth arguing about.
3. As both an IETF participant and as a consumer of the standards we
create I still believe (as I've said previously) that what we need
is not an evolution, but a revolution; with different names for
things that more accurately reflect their status and intended use.
However, it's pretty obvious at this point that there is no broad
support for this position, so I won't waste more time on it.
A revolution is only possible if the world runs out of IPv4 addresses
or if there is support from business constituency, whichever happens later.
Ietf mailing list