I'm with Ran and others who stated that best is the enemy of good in
this case. I think Russ' draft is a step in the right direction and will
reduce complexity and effort. An incremental improvement. We should
adopt it in Maastricht. And lets avoid too much fine-tuning or
fragmentation of the proposals...
Having said that, I did have a couple of other observations. First, it
has been repeatedly noted the IETF community has given up on advancing
documents on the standards ladder. In some sense this is true. Out of
the 122 documents currently in the RFC Editor queue, 0 are for Full
Standard, 1 document (0.8%) is for Draft Standard, 8 (6%) are for
Experimental, 28 (23%) are for Informational, and 83 (68%) are for
Proposed Standard. However, 13 (11%) are bis documents of various sorts.
And that's not a special occurrence, we do produce overall quite many
revisions of existing RFCs. My interpretation is that while overall the
community is not that interested in the standards levels, the IETF is
still very interested in keeping our specifications up to date,
correcting bugs and maybe in some cases even removing or adding some
features. I think it is valuable work and needs to continue. And here is
where in my opinion the possible value of the two-step ladder lies. The
implementation reports may help in directing the "bis" draft to become
simplified, and based on actual experience.
But I would also be OK with a one step model. You can draw "running
code" support for that model from the above data.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf