I don't think that anyone is claiming that the two-maturity-levels draft solves
every problem. This draft should not discourage you or anyone else from
offering additional proposals to solve the problems that you are mentioning in
your email below.
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).
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.
The downside of Russ's draft is that it is possible that after approving it we
might find that nothing changes: Protocol specifications still stay at Proposed
Standard; The IESG still takes a lot of time in approving a request to publish
a proposed standard RFC. This possible downside seems to be a valid argument
that people should continue to think about other improvements to the system
(and send comments to nomcom on the candidates for IESG positions). However,
this potential possible downside doesn't strike me as a reason to refuse to
make the modest step in the right direction that IMHO is expressed in Russ's
draft.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:09 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: what is the problem bis
while we are the topic of problems
Russ basically proposes too change the maturity warning label on IETF
standard track RFCs -- remove baby before folding carriage -- this
hardly seems like our biggest problem
The IETF publishes a lot of standards track RFCs each year. Mostly
these are PS (186 in 2009), some DS (3 in 2009), and some S (6 in 2009).
SOME of these technologies are just what the community needs and just
when the community needs them. But too many are
1/ too late for the market - implementations based on IDs
deployed or other technologies adopted
2/ unneeded by the market - does not meet a need that people
think they have
3/ broken - flawed in some way that prevents actual deployment
4/ too complex - hard and costly to correctly implement
5/ unmanageable - cannot be run by humans
Seems to me that the issue of how the IETF can be better at producing
just what the community needs just when the community needs it is more
important than maturity warning labels.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf