Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > To quote from draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00 (paraphrasing newtrk). > > 4/ there seems to be a reinforcing feedback loop involved: vendors > implement and deploy PS documents so the IESG tries to make the > PS documents better > > This is the core issue, which far from addressing, the proposal tries > to discard the feedback loop, stick its fingers in its ears, and sing > la-la-la-I'm-not-listening.
Please excuse the hyperbole -- Dave's just trying to get our attention. > The fact remains that vendors treat PS maturity RFCs as "standards". > By reverting to the letter of RFC 2026, this will undoubtedly > increase confusion - indeed, it's apparent that much of the deviation > from RFC 2026 has been related to this very confusion. Nothing we put in a rfc2026-bis will change this. Nothing we put in a rfc2026-bis _CAN_ change this. If we want to change this, we need to start putting warning-labels in the _individual_ RFCs that don't meet a "ready for widespread deployment" criterion. (I am speaking neither for nor against two-maturity-levels here: warning-labels need to happen if we expect to change implementors' expectations of PS RFCs.) -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
