Subject: revising an Internet Standard

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:50:21 +0200

IMHO draft-housley-two-maturity-levels is in good shape. I have one
clarifying question.

In RFC 2026, Section 6.3 ("Revising a Standard") states in full:

   A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress
   through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a
   completely new specification.  Once the new version has reached the
   Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which
   will be moved to Historic status.  However, in some cases both
   versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements
   of an installed base.  In this situation, the relationship between
   the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the
   text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an
   Applicability Statement; see section 3.2).

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to imply that any revisions
to an Internet Standard specification (e.g., to address errata) would
force the authors to go back to the I-D stage, then Proposed Standard,
then Internet Standard. Is that right?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:04:45 -0400

I think this is correct for adding a feature.  However, I could support an exception for removing a feature or a handling a straightforward errata.

Russ