Re: capturing the intended standards level, Re: Last Call: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

2011-05-10 Thread SM 

Hi Julian,
At 22:12 09-05-2011, Julian Reschke wrote:

rfc2629.xslt allows specifying the intended maturity in the XML source...:

http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#rfc.section.12.1.p.2

...but it's only metadata in the XML source. Maybe we should add it 
to the ID boilerplate in the future?


I'll ignore details such as authors running an ASCII version of their 
draft through Id-nits.  Quoting Alexey:


 Sometimes references get reclassified during IESG review and this 
causes downrefs.


The issue can occur at the IESG evaluation stage.  With the new RFC 
Editor Model, it's unlikely to occur during AUTH48.


If intended maturity is viewed as a mechanical issues and what you 
suggested fixes 80% of the problem, it may be worth a try.  One could 
also argue that the IESG might see a value in having a reference 
reclassified (things you need to read to implement this specification).


Instead of trying to capture the intended standards level, you could 
simply approve publication as Experimental.  The author gets a RFC 
number.  The IESG does not have to repeat the Last Call.  Obviously, 
authors will lobby against that. :-)


If you would like a glimpse of the outside world, read the thread at 
http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2011-May/005514.html


Regards,
-sm


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

capturing the intended standards level, Re: Last Call: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

2011-05-09 Thread Julian Reschke 

On 09.05.2011 19:07, SM wrote:

...
For what it is worth, the draft was intended for publication as an
Internet Standard (STD 71). As I see it, the problem here is that
Intended status: Standards Track is assumed to be Proposed Standard.
As the Document Shepherd runs a draft through Id-nits, he or she will
not catch the above issue. It's unlikely that the IETF Secretariat will
catch the issue.
...


rfc2629.xslt allows specifying the intended maturity in the XML source...:

http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#rfc.section.12.1.p.2

...but it's only metadata in the XML source. Maybe we should add it to 
the ID boilerplate in the future?


Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf