Dave,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 7/29/2011 11:13 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
(2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as a
BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard document as
Proposed Standard.
I think this is unfair to the people who have done considerable work to
get
a document to Draft Standard. I hope that the IESG would only do this
after giving a lot of notice to the authors, appropriate working groups,
and the IETF community to give them the opportunity to request
advancement
to Internet Standard.
This was added after the discussion that Draft Standards could linger for
a
very long time. Some people said that would not be a problem, and other
people said it would be harmful. I conclude that no one knows, so we
should
include the powers necessary to resolve the problems if they emerge. If
they
do not emerge, there is no requirement that the IESG do anything.
If a document no longer has anyone watching it, there's a reasonable concern
that it no longer has much constituency. In that case, it's better to treat
it as immature rather than mature.
In order to have reached Draft Standard, the w.g. must have shown
multiple implementations. In at least one case I can think about the
protocol is very widely used operationally. The working group is
disbanded, only the mailing list remains. The protocol is very mature
and stable. It's only the IETF activity that is inactive.
You can't measure maturity of a protocol at draft standard by looking
at the IETF activity.
Bob
I think this Section of the document needs to provide additional detail
on
how this should work.
I do not think we should add speculation about the potential problems to
this
document.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf