[Top] [All Lists]

Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

2011-01-30 08:27:39
I believe this proposal to be dangerous and undesirable.

The fact is that the three stage process has never worked. As in not ever.
If you take a look at the current Internet standards over half of the total
are grandfathered from before the IETF was started.

You cannot return to a state that never existed.

The raising of the bar for proposed standard has a very simple reason: it is
now almost impossible to change specifications once deployed. There is no
point in conducting a security review after the RFC has issued, it is too
late. Similarly there is no point in checking to see if the Gen Art criteria
are met.

Another factor here is that many specifications coming to IETF have already
had significant work done.

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> 

I've previously expressed my opinion that proposals to muck with the
number of steps in teh IETF standards process will no do anything
useful (i.e., will not be effective) - JOhn and I have just posted
what, to us, would be a prerequisite for amy process mucking proposal
to succeed


From: Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To: i-d-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: I-D Action:draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

       Title           : Restoring Proposed Standard to Its Intended Use
       Author(s)       : J. Klensin, S. Bradner
       Filename        : draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt
       Pages           : 6
       Date            : 2011-01-29

Restore the very low bar for Proposed Standard described in RFC 2026
(BCP 9)

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list