As a procedural matter, I agree with Scott and John. This
document should not be considered for advancement at this
time nor until such time as there is real evidence of
widespread consensus.
I have to agree with Scott, John and Ekr about this. It's not that change isn't
needed, but rather that this set of changes hasn't received sufficient review
and comment. I also agree with John's assessment that insufficient review given
to process change has in the past opened the door to unintended consequences of
various sorts.
As a substantive issue, renaming PS and DS to Preliminary
and Deplyable strikes me as a terrible idea. Whatever the
merits of the current names, they are the ones we have and
changing them now will only create confusion. Deployable
is a particularly bad choice since PSs are regularly
deployed.
I'm by no means a fan of the current names (draft standard is IMO particularly
problematic) but I agree with Ekr that this change is liable to cause more
problems than it solves.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf