At 2:58 PM +0200 10/27/10, Yoav Nir wrote:
So in answering you second question, I don't see any reason why things won't
keep sticking in PS or even Experimental forever.
Here's a reason, and possibly the strongest one: author pride. If I wrote a
protocol that I was proud of and I had a strong ego (both of those are purely
hypothetical, of course...), I would want to see it move forwards and I might
spend the necessary effort to make it happen.
This is a very good point, and it argues in favor of the current proposal.
Consider: Right now the move to draft is, for specifications of any complexity,
a very nontrivial matter. And the reward, after all is said and done, isn't a
"standard", but rather a "draft standard", which to the uninitiated sounds like
it's a step below proposed. You're then faced with a six month wait, followed
by a fairly ill-defined process step with poorly laid out criteria. All of this
significantly lowers the benefit of the proposed->draft step.
I don't have to guess that this is a significant disincentive to bothering with
advancement, I know it is because it's reflected in my own behavior.
Related, but not as strong of a motivator, is corporate motivation. If
WhizzyCorp helped create BlatP and implemented it in their hardware, there is
some motivation on their part to be able to say "it's a full standard". I
think personal pride would be a stronger motivator.
"full standard", yes. "draft standard", not so much. Names matter.
I support going to two steps so that those motivated to get to the second
step don't have to spend the effort on a third. It makes the market for "this
protocol is more important than that one" waste fewer person-hours on process.
Exactly right.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf