--On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:54 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
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 standard).
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.
+1
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?
+1. Moreover, if that is the problem, then we should modularize
things and address that problem. Sam and I thought we had that
problem under control with RFC 4897, but it has almost never
been used. Randy and Thomas thought they had it under control
with RFC 3967, but I think that has been applied even less
often. I think there are real downsides to eliminating the
normative reference rules entirely and would prefer to see
3967/4897 actually tried first, but, if there is real evidence
that inter-document linkages are a problem, we can change that
(again) without that being any sort of proof that the standards
track needs drastic revision.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf