ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues

2006-03-22 18:30:26
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 05:00:14PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly
wrote:
I would like to see a two tier scheme for standards (i.e. eliminate
the illogical and misleading status 'DRAFT') but on the
understanding that standards require periodic review. By periodic I
mean that there should be fixed windows that are scheduled in
advance when the standard will be reviewed. There would be a fixed
interval in which defect reports could be submitted. One of the
topics of the general session for each area would be a report on the
defect reports and discussion of whether a new revision WG was
required.

It might be easier to close WGs down if this was not quite so final.
Allowing a 'fast track' for defect reports would encourage proposers
to come to the IETF with complete proposals with a substantial
degree of consensus in the user and developer communities. If the
defect report is justified the need should be widely felt, if as is
likely the report is describing existing field practice addressing
that need there should not be a need for substantial discussion.

In some cases it would be appropriate to reactivate the working
group concerned, in others a mini-WG might address multiple
protocols. The need is most common in the security area where crypto
practices need to be revised every 5 years or so. An area wide
activity describing use of SHA-256 would be an example.

It seems to me that if we can't motivate people to review/evaluate/fix
a proposed|draft standard once, how can we motivate them to commit to
doing so periodically?  Are you saying that if we allow them to slap a
standard together and declare it done more easily, that they will be
more willing to come back and fix it later?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf