Commenting on one issue from John's email from Sat 10/30/2010 4:18am
(and ignoring the issue of what John was doing up at 4am):
However, a change to the handling of documents that are
candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of
the IESG. In principle, they could announce tomorrow that any
document submitted for processing after IETF 79 would be
evaluated against the criteria in 2026 and no others other than
reasonable document clarity. If the IESG has the will --and
whatever community backing is needed-- to do that, then the
"two-step" document is not needed. ...
I don't quite agree with this. I think that if the IESG wanted to step
back to a "closer to the wording of 2026" process for proposed standard
documents, then we *do* need to also move to a two step process (rather
than a three step process). The reason is that moving from proposed
standard to draft standard is a step that isn't worth the trouble. This
means that most RFCs can't ever get to full standard. If we want the
first step to really *only be the first step*, we need a second step
that will actually be worth enough that someone will take the effort
to follow it for the vast majority of useful standards.
I won't claim that the two-step document is actually going to cause the
IESG to make the first step easier. However, the IESG has noticed the
message from the community that we don't want many silly discuss votes
to drag out document approval unnecessarily, and has done some serious
navel gazing on the subject. To me it appears that there has been some
improvement in this area over the past five or six years (and I can
recall some rather frustrating examples five or six years ago that I
would rather not dissect in public -- or anywhere else without a beer
in front of me).
Ross
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf