Two document stages: Proposed and Full

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at
Wed Jun 11 00:41:33 CEST 2003

I actually think it might be useful to have a couple of people draft their 
thoughts about specific classification schemes/thoughts (as Ted has done) 
and kick the specifics around on the solutions mailing list.... the problem 
that there's a mismatch between our nomenclature and the needs of the 
community has been well discussed, and just needs to be wordsmithed - the 
specifics on how we solve it is a separable issue....


--On tirsdag, juni 10, 2003 11:43:59 -0700 "Charles E. Perkins" 
<charliep at> wrote:

> Hello folks,
> I think this has been suggested before.  I'd like to
> suggest it again.  Maybe we can get some mileage out of
> having two stages of standardization:
> Proposed Standard: requires working group approval.  IESG comments
> 	taken into account, but full IESG approval not needed before
> 	publication.  Interoperability testing completed, no known
> 	flaws that present danger to the Internet.  Component protocols
> 	are O.K., as long as applicability (usefulness) is documented.
> Full Standard: Full IESG approval required, according to current
> 	procedures.  Component protocols published as part of
> 	document suites, or separately, according to IESG discretion.
> Since the IESG still controls charters and chair selection, one may
> presume that generally sensible people will be involved.  In this
> model, for instance, a working group might publish a component
> protocol, and another working group with more relevant expertise
> might publish another associated component protocol that could fit
> together into a larger system.
> Maybe this is too much "solution space" -- if so, I'll try to
> bring it up whenever I can find that forum.  It's gotta be
> around here somewhere.
> Regards,
> Charlie P.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list