Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 7:28 PM -0400 7/12/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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.
We need to ask what "problem" might be solved, by having an additional maturity
level, beyond Proposed? The problem needs to be something that is actually
useful to solve.
As I said at the plenary (and before) my own favorite is our serious lack of
tracking, to determine what IETF work actually gets used. We have no regular,
formalized method for assessing success or failure.
Hence it would be useful both to us and to the rest of the Internet community,
to have a status that acknowledges that an IETF standards effort has reached
"substantial" community adoption and use.
We can quibble about the criteria for "substantial" separately. The key point
is having a status that is determined by market penetration, rather than
technical details. Proposed is for the technical work. Full is for market
success.
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed have a limit, such
as 3 or 5 years (and, yes, we can quibble about that, too.) If the work cannot
gain sufficient adoption by the end of that time, it has failed and warrants
moving to Historic.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf