ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the problem bis)

2010-10-29 16:48:07

On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:05 PM, John C Klensin wrote:



--On Friday, October 29, 2010 12:20 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan
<HKaplan(_at_)acmepacket(_dot_)com> wrote:


On Oct 27, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

That's why I think we need a different set of labels, e.g.

Protocol-Quality.  We need a statement about the perceived
quality of the protocol described in the document.   (Is this
protocol well-designed for the anticipated use cases, or does
it have significant flaws (including security flaws)?)
Applicability.  We need a statement about the current
applicability of the protocol described in the document.  (Is
...

Hi.  

It is difficult to imagine how these sorts of idea would work in
conjunction with RFCs given that those are explicitly archival,
never-changing documents and your suggestions seem to imply
evolving classification and comment systems.

well, of course those classifications wouldn't be in the RFCs themselves (any 
more than our current maturity levels are).
and it's quite natural that the various measures of quality/relevance/maturity 
of an RFC will fluctuate over time.

However, a number of similar ideas --including effectively
replacing Standards-Track Maturity levels with more descriptive
text and finer-grained comments were incorporated into a
proposal to the NEWTRK WG in 2005-2006.   I think it is safe to
suggest that the reasons why the proposal never went anywhere
remain controversial, but you might find it interesting
recreational reading:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/

thanks for the pointer; I'll take a look.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>