On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
That's an argument for _no_ maturity levels, then, not for two.
Is there an implicit assumption here that more standards (presumably of
poorer quality) is a good thing?
Not on my part.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was your assumption. I do wonder if it's
an assumption held by many in the discussion.
I'm merely observing that, if the claim is that you
can't alter deployed protocols, then there's no reason to say that we
need two maturity levels, because in fact nothing will advance past
the first stage anyway.
As far as I can tell, the principal reason any specifications move beyond
Proposed is that they are widely deployed and their limitations become
apparent. So I think you can alter deployed protocols, but only if the
protocols or their implementations are seen to be sufficiently broken.
(Which could lead one to conclude, from a perverse point-of-view, that some
flaws should be left in at Proposed Standards so that they'll have to be fixed
later, so that we can get more Draft and Full Standards published.)
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf