Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> wrote:
To quote from draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00 (paraphrasing newtrk).
4/ there seems to be a reinforcing feedback loop involved: vendors
implement and deploy PS documents so the IESG tries to make the
PS documents better
This is the core issue, which far from addressing, the proposal tries
to discard the feedback loop, stick its fingers in its ears, and sing
la-la-la-I'm-not-listening.
Please excuse the hyperbole -- Dave's just trying to get our attention.
The fact remains that vendors treat PS maturity RFCs as "standards".
By reverting to the letter of RFC 2026, this will undoubtedly
increase confusion - indeed, it's apparent that much of the deviation
from RFC 2026 has been related to this very confusion.
Nothing we put in a rfc2026-bis will change this. Nothing we put in
a rfc2026-bis _CAN_ change this.
If we want to change this, we need to start putting warning-labels
in the _individual_ RFCs that don't meet a "ready for widespread
deployment" criterion.
(I am speaking neither for nor against two-maturity-levels here:
warning-labels need to happen if we expect to change implementors'
expectations of PS RFCs.)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf