I would argue that "Proposed Standard" as the end-of-the-line
in our standardization process is just wrong. I certainly can see
an argument for merging "Proposed" and "Draft" - but there are lots
of indications that even the simplified one-step process of moving
from Draft to full Standard would not get done much of the time.
The reality of the current IETF is that we view publishing a Proposed
specification as an indication of success. That is, we think it is an
ending, rather than a beginning.
A minor problem with this is that we have no sense of what IETF actually
gets deployed and used, and what doesn't. This leaves us exposed to
developing very unrealistic feeling about our current impact on the
Internet.
(The status of Historic is not relevant to this question, since it is
applied only erratically and long after a specification has demonstrated
that it is not useful...any more.)
What we need is a more immediate basis for assessing current utility of
recent IETF work.
That's why I keep suggesting that we set a time-limit for deployment and
use of Proposed specifications. Those failing to garner the necessary
community support automatically go to Historic. Those that succeed go
to Full.
Of course, such a mechanism would require that the IETF community
actually step up and take affirmative responsibility for whether our
output gets used.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf