On 1/30/2011 7:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Is there an implicit assumption here that more standards (presumably of
poorer quality) is a good thing?
Not on my part. 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.
The current proposal specifies a second maturity level that does not permit
changing the technical specification.
But if the problem is that you can't alter a deployed spec, then no matter
how many levels we pare off past the first, nothing will move to those higher
levels, because it's only the first level that counts.
The rationale for the second level concerns assessment of success, not changes
to the protocol.
So the basis upon which the second level will succeed or fail has nothing to do
with the criterion you are citing.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf