I think this is correct for adding a feature. However, I could support an
exception for removing a feature or a handling a straightforward errata.
Russ
On Mar 27, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
IMHO draft-housley-two-maturity-levels is in good shape. I have one
clarifying question.
In RFC 2026, Section 6.3 ("Revising a Standard") states in full:
A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress
through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a
completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the
Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which
will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both
versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements
of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between
the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the
text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an
Applicability Statement; see section 3.2).
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to imply that any revisions
to an Internet Standard specification (e.g., to address errata) would
force the authors to go back to the I-D stage, then Proposed Standard,
then Internet Standard. Is that right?
Peter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf