OK, we really do seem determined to relive the early 2000s...
It seems to me that abolishing the third level is possible, now, because
the handling of I-Ds has been enhanced. IMHO, it is an advantage to
require some experience before giving an I-D the rank of Proposed
Standard. Because I-Ds can change more rapidly and informally than an
official standardization round, the early adoption phase can be much more
agile that way.
However, some I-Ds become RFCs unexpectedly soon, and may ship untested
prototypes. If it is agreed that this is rather a shift of maturity
levels than simply the abolishment of the last, then some of the current
criteria for Draft Standard should be formally shifted to Proposed
Standard accordingly.
There were proposals for Stable Snap Shots (SSS) from Scott Bradner, and
Working Group Snapshots (WGS) from me, Dave, and Charlie Perkins. If I'm
remembering correctly, both were intended to say "this is stable NOW, but I
wouldn't put it in firmware, because we're still getting experience with it,
and it could change".
Working Group Snapshots (WGS) in
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt
Stable SnapShots (SSS), in
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-01.txt
For extra credit, we could implement these with no 2026/2418 changes, if
changing 2026/2418 is as impossible as it looks - neither BCP says we CAN'T
do WGS/SSS.
We probably don't want to restart these discussions without someone
summarizing the state of play in previous discussions, because Groundhog's
Day was a great movie, but a lousy standards process :D
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf