ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

PS Characterization Clarified

2013-08-02 05:37:50


Colleagues,

I have posted draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-00.txt

We have evolved the quality criteria for our entry-level maturity level and 
todays documentation doesn't reflect that.  With this document we intend to 
align our characterization of PS with what is the current day reality. 

Having 'Immaturity' terminology in RFC2024 and having a large number of 
specifications that remain on proposed standard is something that is hard to 
explain by anybody talking about the quality of IETF standards[*]. But that is 
not the only, or even primary, motivation for submitting this. It is good for 
the people participating in the IETF to be aligned on our quality norms.

The I-D does not speak to, or alter the process by which we progress on the 
maturity track. 

--Olaf

[*] e.g. in regulatory and industry context such as 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2758


PS. As an aside, with reference to the discussion about progressing standards 
during the Administrative plenary. I would like to stress that the quality 
control (cross area review, progressing along the standards track, and retiring 
specification) that our maintenance mechanisms provide are an important part in 
the conversation about RFCs with external business and policy parties.













URL: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-00.txt

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • PS Characterization Clarified, Olaf Kolkman <=