I think this draft may do a little good, but mostly based on the
attention it brings to the issue.
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed
Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real
steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit* the
requirement of multiple interoperable implementations, a requirement
sometimes applied in an inconsistent and haphazard manner to
candidates for Proposed Standard.
On STD numbers, they were an interesting experiment but I believe, as
currently implemented, they have been proven to add only confusion and
bureaucracy. It would be quite easy and straightforward to have a
different document sequence for Standards. For success in this, it
would be essential to assure that they do *not* have RFC numbers.
History shows that, regardless of other labels, if a document has an
RFC #, most references to it will be via that number.
Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
As I have stated before, I do not think that this proposal will achieve
anything useful since it will not change anything related to the
underlying causes of few Proposed Standards advancing on the standards
track. I see it as window dressing and, thus, a diversion from the
technical work the IETF should focus on.
If it were up to me, I would not approve this ID for publication as a
RFC (of any type)
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