Russ,
In reading the latest version of your proposal, I finally realized that a
motivating premise:
o Since many documents are published as Proposed Standard and never
advances to a higher maturity level, the initial publication
receives much more scrutiny that is call for by RFC 2026 [1].
is well-intentioned, sounds reasonable, but is actually without any practical
foundation. In other words, we do not know that the premise is valid.
There are many likely reasons that the process of getting through the IESG, for
Proposed, has become such a high burden. (Perhaps you did not mean to limit the
reference to mean only IESG scrutiny, but in formal terms, it really is the only
one that matters, in terms of 'scrutiny'.)
I think that a detached and thorough exploration of those possible reasons is
likely to show that the problem pre-dates the move towards leaving documents at
Proposed and, in fact, well might have contributed to it. By virtue of having
Proposed be so difficult to attain, there is a disincentive for going through
the process again, for the same protocol.
A tendency for all of us in this kind of topic is to make simple assertions of
cause or of likely behavioral change that sound reasonable but have little
empirical basis.
We need to be careful to avoid falling into that trap, because the changes being
discussed are strategic, and could well be impossible to reverse completely...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf