At 7:28 PM -0400 7/12/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I can't believe that I just raised my hand after "who is willing to
work on this tomorrow"... But here is the abstract, let me know if I
should write the rest:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG has
at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a document may
move to Standard (which replaces Draft Standard and Internet
Standard) or Historic if its implementation and deployment warrant
this. The IESG publishes a short note explaining the rationale when
changing designations.
Without a very explicit set of rules for the PS -> S transition, this
is not much better than what we have today. Protocol developers will
still want to get "their" protocol into the S state, regardless of
demand from vendors or customers.
Moving PS -> H seems reasonable, but is the effort of defining and,
more important, implementing PS -> S worth the benefit of having some
things have a special status?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf