Hi. For the past few plenary meetings, people have gotten up to the
mic and complained that we've lost track of what proposed standard is
all about. We take too long reviewing documents to make them perfect
and would be better off just throwing them out earlier without so much
review.
I disagree.
The point of proposed standard is not to throw a document out there
and get comments, although of course we're always willing to listen to
comments on our documents.
The point of proposed standard is to throw things out there and get
implementation experience.
If specs are unclear, then we're not going to get implementation
experience; we are going to waste time.
I've had a lot of experience with a rather unclear spec with some
significant problems that managed to make its way to proposed
standard: For the past 10 years I have been dealing with problems in
Kerberos (RFC 1510). IThis leads me to believe very strongly that
catching problems before documents reach PS is worth a fairly high
price in time.
That said, I realize too much time can be spent on a review. When
we're not sure we understand the implications of an issue well enough
to know whether it will a be a problem, letting a document go to PS
and getting implementation experience can be useful.
Similarly, if the review process will never successfully conclude,
then having the review early is good.
ALso, I am simply saying that waiting for complete reviews is good and
the pressure to get things out as PS faster with less review is
dangerous. If there are ways to reduce time spent on the reviews
without reducing quality, I recognize the value of these efforts.