Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed > Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real > steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit* the > requirement of multiple interoperable implementations, a requirement > sometimes applied in an inconsistent and haphazard manner to > candidates for Proposed Standard.
+1 I suppose where such "requirements" are dropped, a warning-label such as "Not considered safe for widespread deployment" deserves to be attached; but IMHO we'd be much better off with explicit warning labels than with implicit expectiations which are poorly documented. Proposed Standard _used_to_ imply "May not be safe for widespread deployment; but I'm afraid that whole mindset has disappeared over the years. I would suggest a serious effort to list mission-creep that has found its way into "requirements" for Proposed Standard; and to work out what sort of warning labels we could use instead. Otherwise, I see escalating mission-creep, regardless of the number of "maturity levels". -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
