some more thoughts
first figure out what problem you are trying to solve
is the problem:
1/ that the 3 step standards track described in RFC 226 and its
predecessors does not describe what happens most of the time?
2/ (as Eric says) that it takes too long to get to the first stage
3/ too much of the Internet runs on Internet Drafts?
4/ ???
then analyze the problem to see what might be behind it
e.g., for problem #1
1/ no real incentive to put more work into advancing a document
2/ too much effort required to advance
3/ no actual benefit in advancing
4/ the current IESG review ensures that the first stage document is
rigorous enough that additional work on the technology is not needed
5/ requiring running code early in the game ensures that additional work
on the technology is not needed (see James's note)
6/ ???
e.g., for problem #2
1/ see #4 above
2/ see #5 above
3/ working with busy volunteers
e.g., problem #3
1/ see problem #2
if the problem is #1 then what to do about it:
1/ change the process to meet what you think is the normal case (i.e.
define away that there is a problem)
2/ change the process to one that is not currently followed and provide
no reason to think that the underlying reasons the current process is
not followed will magically change to make the new process any more of
an accurate description. (to me this is where Russ's ID sits)
3/ address some of the underlying reasons that the current description
is not followed
4/ live with the current description and worry about things that can
actually be fixed
etc.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf