Hi Scott and John, I don't see this as inconsistent with the current 2-stage proposal, if the latter's omission of a requirement for independent interoperable implementations for stage 2 is corrected.
I don't, however, believe that the problems are separable. The bar for PS has crept up, IMHO, precisely because the bar for DS/STD has appeared too high to be readily attainable. So I see two ways forward that hang together: 1. draft-bradner-restore-proposed + (draft-housley-two-maturity-levels + independent interoperable implementations) 2. draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01 (i.e. simply abolish the second and third stages, and make interoperability reports optional) I prefer #1. Regards Brian On 2011-01-30 11:39, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > I've previously expressed my opinion that proposals to muck with the > number of steps in teh IETF standards process will no do anything > useful (i.e., will not be effective) - JOhn and I have just posted > what, to us, would be a prerequisite for amy process mucking proposal > to succeed > > Scott > > ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: I-D Action:draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : Restoring Proposed Standard to Its Intended Use > Author(s) : J. Klensin, S. Bradner > Filename : draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2011-01-29 > > Restore the very low bar for Proposed Standard described in RFC 2026 > (BCP 9) > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
