From the draft:
1. Rename PS as Preliminary Standard.
I have often confused the order between "Proposed" and "Draft" standard.
[In my view, one needs to "draft" a standard before you can "propose"
it,
but in the IETF, you "propose" first, and then "draft" it.]
So I would like to suggest that the name for the standards at each
step must clearly indicate
their maturity level and where the standard is on the ladder.
With a two-step process, naming the first step "Proposed",
"Preliminary" or "Draft"
and the second stage "Full" works well. With a three-stage process, I
think we need
better names for the first two stages.
If we stick with the three-stage process, then perhaps the names
"Preliminary Standard"
"Intermediate Standard"
"Full Standard"
might be used.
- Philip
On 5-Jul-07, at 03:29 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I posted draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-00.txt at
Russ Housley's request. Obviously, discussion is very much
wanted.
Brian
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rfc2026-
changes-00.txt
This document proposes a number of changes to RFC 2026, the basic
definition of the IETF standards process. While some of them are
definite changes to the rules, the intention is to preserve the
main
intent of the original rules, while adapting them to experience and
current practice.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf