Hi Pete,
On 2011-07-31 04:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
...
I *really* want an answer to the issue that Scott raises. Eric and Brian
each refer to a "baby step". A baby step toward what exactly?
If the answer is simply, "to align documentation with current
procedure", that's fine, but then I want to know: a) Why is it useful
and positive to line up documentation with current procedure? That is,
what are we gaining by publishing this?
I believe that the present situation is confusing both to IETF newcomers
(who may falsely believe that the IETF actually follows the 3 stage process)
and, worse, confusing to users of IETF standards (who may falsely believe
that a document isn't useful until it's advanced). We, and those users,
gain by reducing the confusion. (Note: I did not write "eliminating the
confusion".)
and b) This document is
identical to neither 2026 *nor* current procedure, so how is it
accomplishing the goal of aligning with current procedure anyway?
It defines a practice which is *very* close to present practice,
apart from a minor name change. I think that's the best we can do,
but that's why it's a baby step, not a no-op.
If the answer is, "Yes, this document will cause a change in the percent
of Proposed Standards that move up", then I want to know "How?", because
like Scott, I haven't heard the answer stated in this dicussion.
It might cause a change, simply because the effort of making the single
move PS->IS will get you to the end state, whereas previously you had
to make two efforts, PS->DS->STD. But only time will tell if this changes
our collective behaviour.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf