Characterization of Proposed Standards

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Richard Barnes) Yes

Comment (2013-10-23 for -04)
No email
send info
In general, this document does a really good job of clarifying things that should have been made clear long ago.

The IETF review is possibly more extensive than that done in most other SDOs owing to the cross-area technical review performed by the IETF.

This seems like an unnecessary dig at other SDOs.  Maybe the following?

The IETF review is especially extensive owing to the cross-area technical review performed by the IETF.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Benoît Claise) Yes

Comment (2013-10-18 for -04)
No email
send info
In section 2, I believe that you're missing the argument that many Proposed Standards are actually deployed on the Internet, as stable protocols.
This proves the point that the community deemed unnecessary to upgrade to Internet Standard (for the sake of upgrading, i.e. without some specifications improvements/changes/errata integration).

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2013-10-19 for -04)
No email
send info

Does the IESG review Proposed Standard RFCs or does it review Internet-
Drafts requested for publication as Proposed Standard RFCs?

Similar issue at the top of the Introduction.


Section 1

"This document exclusively updates..."

Could mean "This document updates only..." or "No other document 

Suggest you mean the former and change to it.


I should find this document even more excellent if the Abstract and
Introduction both made a summary statement of the "new" characterization
so that lazy readers picked this up easily and clearly.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

(Barry Leiba) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Comment (2013-11-03 for -05)
No email
send info
I think the discussion is converging, and I'm removing my DISCUSS to let Jari, as sponsoring AD, decide when things are settled and it's time to post the approval.

The main issue that we're still settling is about whether to:

1 leave Section 3.2 as it is, copying the "characterization" part from 2026 Section 4.1.3, or

2. have Section 3.2 refer to 2026 Section 4.1.3, without copying the text, or

3. have Section 3 fully replace 2026 Section 4.1, so all the description of the maturity levels is in one place.

Jari... it's yours.

(Ted Lemon) Yes

(Pete Resnick) Yes

Comment (2013-10-19 for -04)
No email
send info
Abstract: The word "new" strikes me as odd here. Saying "new" implies that first we're changing the characterization, and then we're going to start behaving in accordance with it. What we're doing is updating the characterization to reflect reality. The Intro gets this right. A suggested update to the Abstract; do with it as you see fit:

   RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed
   Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents. 
   Since its publication, reviews have become more stringent than
   described by RFC 2026. This document clarifies those descriptions and
   updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and more accurate
   characterization of Proposed Standards.
Section 2:

   the IETF strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically
   operating as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the
   IETF to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the
   Standard Track document.

I suggest adding to this sentence: "before it is deployed on the Internet". I think this may also address Benoit's comment.

   The IETF review is
   possibly more extensive than that done in most other SDOs owing to...

Whether or not the above is true, I think saying it this way, even with the "possibly", is just hubris. (Given the audience for this document, it has the potential to cause grumbling.) I suggest "The IETF review is at least as extensive as that in most other SDOs owing to..."

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-17 for -04)
No email
send info
In 4.  Further Considerations

   While less mature specifications will usually be published as
   Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, on occasion,
   publish a specification that still contains areas for improvement or
   certain uncertainties about whether the best engineering choices are

I'm almost sure this means "something like publish a proposed standard", but that's not what it says, so I'm guessing.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22 for -04)
No email
send info
- "exemplified by technical review by the full IESG at
the last stage of specification development" might be
problematic if the recent discussion about changing the
role of the IESG in document review bears fruit. I'm ok
that we say that since I'd not bet on the other
discussion resulting in short-term change, but it might
be prudent to re-word just in case. Not sure I can think
of a good rewording though that'd be worth including.

- Did section 4 get any reaction in IETF LC or before?
If not, I bet we regret that last sentence.

- Given the non-IETF audience at which this is partly
aimed, it might make sense to say that all proposed
standards contain an analysis of security considerations
or something.

- I agree Benoit's point is important to make and

(Sean Turner) (was Abstain) Recuse