On 2011-09-07 10:12, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-09-07 00:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-09-07 09:35, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
My personal opinion for some time has been that we ought to recognize
that
the previous PS moved into "WG draft" years ago and that anything
named an
RFC should be recognized as something that market will consider a
standard.
And who raised the bar? It wasn't the IESG, it was the market, and more
specifically the product managers and IT managers who adopted RFC
conformance
as their criterion.
I'm a bit fed up with the IESG being blamed for this, rather than being
congratulated on adapting to it.
...
Well, if that's really what happened, then
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels seems to solve the wrong problem.
The problem it is claimed to solve is an easier one: making it
more likely that people will do the work to progress *beyond* PS.
I don't see it as having the slightest impact on the quality or quantity
of PS documents. That is a different, and harder, problem. And that's
why I changed the Subject header; I like it when messages have a subject
header that describes the content, not the content of another thread
that finsihed a while back.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf