Re: netwrk stuff

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 7:28 PM -0400 7/12/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I can't believe that I just raised my hand after "who is willing to 
> work on this tomorrow"... But here is the abstract, let me know if I 
> should write the rest:
>
> RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or 
> Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG has 
> at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a document may 
> move to Standard (which replaces Draft Standard and Internet 
> Standard) or Historic if its implementation and deployment warrant 
> this. The IESG publishes a short note explaining the rationale when 
> changing designations.

Without a very explicit set of rules for the PS -> S transition, this 
is not much better than what we have today. Protocol developers will 
still want to get "their" protocol into the S state, regardless of 
demand from vendors or customers.

Moving PS -> H seems reasonable, but is the effort of defining and, 
more important, implementing PS -> S worth the benefit of having some 
things have a special status?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf