Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed
Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real
steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit* the
requirement of multiple interoperable implementations, a requirement
sometimes applied in an inconsistent and haphazard manner to
candidates for Proposed Standard.
+1
I suppose where such "requirements" are dropped, a warning-label
such as "Not considered safe for widespread deployment" deserves to
be attached; but IMHO we'd be much better off with explicit warning
labels than with implicit expectiations which are poorly documented.
Proposed Standard _used_to_ imply "May not be safe for widespread
deployment; but I'm afraid that whole mindset has disappeared over the
years.
I would suggest a serious effort to list mission-creep that has
found its way into "requirements" for Proposed Standard; and to work
out what sort of warning labels we could use instead.
Otherwise, I see escalating mission-creep, regardless of the number
of "maturity levels".
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf