OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Spencer Dawkins]

I haven't seen any followup to Brian's note, and wanted to

(1) agree that moving from PS to full Standard is more
likely interesting than moving from PS to Draft Standard,

(2) agree that Draft Standard does NOT seem like a more
impressive name than PS to anyone outside IETF (and
it's been a while since someone has been confused about
the difference between "draft standard" and "internet draft
on the standards track" in my presence, but it has happened).

Spencer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track


> Eric Rosen wrote:
> >
> > Brian> Secondly, this is a case where I think a simple first step may
> > Brian> help quite a bit: simply merge Draft Standard and Standard
> > Brian> into a single class, called Standard,  but with the criteria
> > Brian> now used for Draft Standard.
> >
> > Brian> Arguments: remove a process step that we basically never use,
> > Brian> and make the step up from Proposed Standard worth the trouble.
> >
> > Could you explain how this makes the step up from PS worth the trouble?
>
> Because you know that the effort of documenting the interoperable
> implementations will be rewarded by immediately getting to the final
> status, rather than just getting to an intermediate plateau (and one with
> a very confusing name, since to outsiders it sounds like a step
backwards).
>
>   Brian
>