On 10/26/2010 9:32 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
There are two problems that Russ's draft may very well solve: One issue with
our current system is that there is no incentive to go from Proposed Standard
to Draft Standard (since you are only going from one "intermediate state"
short of full standard to another "intermediate state" also short of full
The theory that this change will create this incentive is exactly what I meant
by charming but unfounded. Really, the premise here is an appealing fantasy. It
presumes that the extra label imposes a psychological barrier, but there is no
evidence that this is true.
What this thinkin really does is to take attention away from the actual
barriers, which others have cited at length.
Working groups take too long. The IESG often takes too long and ADs often raise
unexpected and possibly even arbitrary barriers. We have moved to an enormously
heavyweight model. Timeliness is almost never a factor.
Nothing gets better until that changes.
Another issue is that increasingly each of our standards relies on
multiple other standards, so that RFCs can only move to Draft Standard if
multiple other drafts do also, and it is too much trouble to move multiple
drafts all at the same time.
This, at least, is a pragmatic point. I think there has been little effort to
evaluate it deeply. It might have some benefit; it might not. Where is the
archive of consideration?
Ietf mailing list