On Sep 15, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I was in the rough on that one in 2005, but since we're looking at another > bulk recategorization effort, I might make this suggestion again - perhaps we > could define a new level, which might be called something like "Not > Maintained", with the criteria as, "we can't identify anyone who is willing > and able to maintain the specification" That's actually something the IETF > COULD know. We could ask, and if we hear crickets, "Not Maintained". If > somebody shows up later, recategorize.
Part of the problem is the expectation that some single label should entirely define the status of a specification. There are several almost-orthogonal variables that the community cares about (or should care about): - currency - does the document (still) reflect best current practice for implementations of this protocol to work well? - maintenance status - is the specification still being actively maintained? - technical soundness - does the protocol described meet current criteria for technical soundness? (okay, this is similar to currency) - applicability - is this protocol (still) recommended for general use in this space, or for use only in corner cases, or is its use generally discouraged (presumably in favor of something else)? - maturity - has this specification been implemented for long enough and enough times to have confidence in the quality of the protocol described and the specification for it? - market penetration - is the protocol widely used in practice? is it generally necessary for applications in this space to support it? Trying to collapse all of these into X standard / informational / experimental / historic quite naturally leads to some tension between different interpretations of those terms. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
