It seems to me that this discussion is conflating two related but distinct
things: protocols and specifications.
The IETF is concerned with producing and refining *protocols*; however the
work products are specifications(RFCs).
A *protocol* such as SMTP is very mature and thus can be used by many
different parties to enable e-mail exchange with high confidence in its
interoperability. For example, SMTP has matured over the last several
decades by adopting DNS and MX routing, creating a mechanism for allowing
enhancements (EHLO), dropping unuseful features such as SEND and source
routing, separating Submission from forwarding (SUBMIT), among others.
The *specifications* for SMTP (RFC821, etc.) have been of varying quality
measured by their accuracy in describing the *protocol*. The goal of a
specification should be its capability for allowing someone to implement
the protocol accurately, not whether the protocol itself is well designed.
Therefore I would suggest that the SMTP protocol remains a Full Standard
even while successor specifications to RFC821, which are trying to describe
it, are cycling through levels of wordsmithing. Although the words
"Proposed" and "Draft" seem reasonable to describe these editing cycles I
am not sure that "Full" quite captures the goal of this process.
For what it's worth.
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf