At 00:35 12-08-10, John C Klensin wrote:
Interesting. I completely disagree. Suggesting more attention
to a tradeoff and making that tradeoff more clear is a change
in general guidance, not a change in conformance rules or other
normative requirements (much less a "new requirement"). If
changes in general guidance are not acceptable, then the only
changes that can be made between Draft and Full are editorial.
In the IETF it's also a matter of how you say it. :-)
I agree that suggesting more attention to a tradeoff and making a
tradeoff more clear is not a change in conformance rules.
The academic exercise was about whether a change which is too
technical or substantive means having to cycle to Draft. One of the
reasons for the levels is "to verify
that the text of the specification is adequately clear and
accurate". "A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be
quite stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
implementation". The specification can be advanced to Full Standard
once significant implementation and successful operational experience
has been obtained. The "standards of evidence are materially beyond
what can be reasonably accomplished". A pragmatic approach is to
leave it to the advocates to make a convincing argument that the
specification fulfills the requirements. The "specific way to make
the argument is left to the advocate".
Put simply, changes in general guidance are acceptable.