Dave: the issue is that PS was previously not seen as a finished product,
now it has much more exalted status, but the criteria have not changed.
On May 6, 2011 11:09 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 5/6/2011 1:31 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards.
What, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe will
lower
the quality of a Proposed Standard?
The parts unmentioned in the document, in effect.
It states:
...
The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they
remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1].
...
RFC 2026 essentially defines a PS document as being a first cut, likely
to
change, and as such unsuitable for production deployment. In particular:
You appear to be saying that the new document lowers quality by continuing
to
use the same basic criteria and qualifiers for Proposed that we've used
for many
years.
Forgive me, but I do not understand how that logic works. How can the new
process document lower quality by holding the established criteria for
Proposed
stable?
It appears that your actual concern is not about the new document, but
rather
the existing process specification (RFC 2026).
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf