[ih] "The Internet runs on Proposed Standards"

[Scott Bradner]

note that, starting with RFC 2026, the move out of proposed std requires that two independent
licenses of any claimed IPR be shown - this was put in as a way to empirically judge
if the license terms were fair

Scott

> On Dec 2, 2022, at 7:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 02-Dec-22 19:25, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On 2. Dec 2022, at 03:16, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In any case, the formal "STD" designation doesn't really mean much.
>> I don’t quite agree.  This inconspicuous label has helped provide motivation for some significant efforts that led to tremendously improved specifications.
>> Going to STD is pretty much the only IETF activity that creates legitimate space for considerable reflection.
>> That said, I’d say that the *absence* of the formal “STD” designation doesn’t really mean much.
>> The fact that we label our regular-quality specifications “Proposed Standard” is highly misleading to people not familiar with the arcana of the process.
>> If I were tasked to name the single most damaging self-inflicted feature of the process, this would probably be that label.
> 
> Since this is the history list, I will limit myself to observing that there have been several attempts in recent history to reduce the standards track to a single stage, and it seems that interest in this question and energy to discuss it is approximately zero.
> See the above subject header.
> 
>    Brian
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history