Nelson,
I was referring to the "maturity level" as defined in RFC 2026, not
the date of publication. For standards track specifications, Section
4.1 of RFC 2026 states
Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing,
and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages
are formally labeled "maturity levels".
The three maturity levels for standards track specifications are
Proposed Standard (the "entry level"), Draft Standard, and Standard.
As noted in section 4.2.4 of 2026:
Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
specifications from other standards bodies.
I would like to advance RFC 3852 from Proposed Standard to Draft
Standard even though it depends on two standards track specifications
with maturity level below that of Draft Standard: RFCs 3280 and 3281,
which are both Proposed Standards. This last call is intended to
gauge community support for that action.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
On Apr 27, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
The IESG wrote, On 2009-04-27 06:58 PDT:
The IESG has received a request from the smime WG (smime) to consider
the following document:
- 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
RFC 3852 as a Draft Standard
No technical issues were raised during the first Last Call.
However, the
Last Call failed to highlight two normative references to standards
track
documents of lower maturity: RFCs 3280 and 3281.
lower maturity?
Did you perhaps mean "greater maturity" or "lower number" ?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf