Subject: Re: [newtrk] Re: BCP 61, advancing to draft

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:43:29 -0500 (EST)

> (BTW, I've recently thought that we should rename PS to stand
> for "Preliminary Standard.")

fwiw - the original designation (circa 1988) for the 1st step in
the standards track was "proposed protocol" (the 2nd was as it is now -
"draft standard")

see RFC 1083 section 2

Scott
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:07:43 -0600

A pointer, and a rant...

From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
> the standards track was "proposed protocol" (the 2nd was as it is now -

Charlie Perkins and I did a two-stage proposal in 2003 that called the first 
stage "Proposed Specification" and the second stage "Internet Standard". We 
thought that was pretty much what the categories actually meant.

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/I-D/draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-00.txt

I can't believe that we are still having this conversation three years 
later, of course...

Thanks,

Spencer 

.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:56:27 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Charlie Perkins and I did a two-stage proposal in 2003 that called the 
> first stage "Proposed Specification" and the second stage "Internet 
> Standard". We thought that was pretty much what the categories actually 
> meant.
> 

Oh, I can, easily :-(

The reason I've come to like "preliminary" is that I see no shame in saying
"The Internet runs on preliminary standards," but I've always felt a bit
odd about "The Internet runs on proposed standards." But it's really a detail.

    Brian

.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 07:03:26 -0600

Hi, Brian,

Sorry I wasn't clearer - our thinking was (as best I can remember) that the 
first stage that actually includes the word "standard", regardless of 
adjective, will be the terminal state for most specifications (especially as 
long as we disband working groups that might advance specifications beyond 
this stage).

So, using Brian's "Preliminary", I would be thinking in terms of 
"Preliminary Specification" and "Internet Standard".

Three years ago, I thought it was OK to overload the vast amount of text we 
have amassed on "PS", so that keeping the same initials seemed helpful, 
rather than trying to root out all the usages and make sure they were 
consistent. That may still be the best plan, but seems less clear now.

Thanks,

Spencer

>> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/I-D/draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-00.txt I 
>> can't believe that we are still having this conversation three years 
>> later, of course...
>
> Oh, I can, easily :-(
>

.