Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-03.txt> (Characterization of Proposed Standards) to Best Current Practice

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:33:01 -0700

At 11:18 18-09-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'Characterization of Proposed Standards'
>   <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-03.txt> as Best Current
>Practice
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-10-16. Exceptionally, comments may be

There is a typo in the heading of Section 2 ( Reveiew).

I think that it is a fine idea for the IETF to document what it 
does.  This document does that.  During the last meeting Eliot Lear 
mentioned that Olaf has spent an enormous amount of time to defend 
and to advance the IETF's views on standardization.  This document 
can make that work easier.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:44:39 +0200

Dear all,

Thanks for this important, which I support.

In section 2, I would add that only a few protocols moved from Proposed 
Standard to Internet Standard, even if those protocols were widely 
deployed in the Internet. This proves the points that:
1. the specifications were stable
2. the community deemed unnecessary to upgrade to Internet Standard (for 
the sake of upgrading, i.e. without some specifications 
improvements/changes/errata integration)
Or maybe this is covered by "for a number of reasons" in "Over time, for 
a number of reasons, this progression became less common?

Reading this draft, I wonder: why would someone still want to go for 
Internet Standard, since PS is "mature", "as mature as final standards 
from other standards development organizations"? Maybe you want to 
expand on this.

Editorial:

OLD:

    The result was that IETF Proposed Standards
    approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review.

NEW:

    The result was that IETF Proposed Standards
    approved over the last decade or more have had extensive reviews.

OLD:

    RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed
    Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents.  This
    document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by
    providing a new characterization Proposed Standards.

NEW:
    RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed
    Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents.  This
    document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by
    providing a new characterization_of_Proposed Standards.

Regards, Benoit
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>     RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed
>     Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents.  This
>     document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by
>     providing a new characterization Proposed Standards.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
> .
>