On Tue, 2011-03-15, Martin Rex wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
to Proposed Standard.
1. While the accounting ugliness of leaving these untouched is obvious,
I am less clear about the practical trouble they cause. We should gain
some public agreement that this is seriousness enough to worry about,
and why.
2. Automatic reclassification strikes me as dangerous and likely to have
serious unintended consequences.
I don't understand the motivation about changing anything about
the status of documents that have already been published.
Among the original complaints there were the two:
- the IETF is confusing the non-IETFers about the standardization
with its three levels of document maturity
- the bar for Proposed is too high and ought to be lowered.
Unless the clear intent and IETF consensus is to add
- mislead _everyone_ about the real document maturity of *ALL*
IETF documents, including all existing documents
- penalize all folks did put effort into going to "Draft Standard"
by completely nixing their effort two years later.
the status of the existing documents should NOT be touched by any new
rules for publishing documents as Proposed Standards.
+1
To make clear which documents were issued under the original regime
and which were issued under the new, there should probably be
an obvious gap in the number range (going to 5 digit or 6 digit numbers).
-1 (simple sequentially increasing RFC numbers for all items is fine)
-Martin
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf