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