On 9/4/2013 11:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
baked? This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and
robust. If we like being in that room, that's fine. But it removes
the "IESG can put fuzzy stuff out as PS if it thinks that's the right
thing to do" option.
Wouldn't such spec come with an applicability statement of sorts? (today, in
practice?)
That's a good point; probably yes.
So if the text here can say something that allows a PS spec to *say*
that it's less mature, and that that's being done on purpose, my
concern is satisfied.
Not the spec itself but an associated statement about it?
There was a proposal to provide an alternative way of publishing
applicability statements, in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04 (now
expired).
As a specific current example, I have the sense that the documents
coming out of the repute working group are specifying a protocol
that's somewhat less mature than what we usually do -- more comparable
to the 2026 version of PS than to this one. Yet I absolutely think
they should be PS, *not* Experimental.
OK, somebody has to say it. Maybe we should have another state,
something like draft standard.
There were a couple of proposals to provide a way of saying "the working
group thinks they're finished, but lets hold off on PS until they see
how the protocol works". The one I co-authored was at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00, Scott Bradner's
was at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00, in
Section 5. Both are now expired.
Perhaps those drafts would be helpful background for folks thinking
about this? (especially for folks who were too busy doing protocol work
to follow NEWTRK? :-)
Spencer