At 13:17 30-08-2011, Jari Arkko wrote:
There were a number of smaller details raised in the discussion. But
I did not see an overwhelming consensus on any specific issue to
make changes. But I will ask Russ to take a look at the issue raised
by Scott, whether he wants to add an informative reference to RFC 5657.
I read draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09. I read the messages
which might be interpreted as statements of support. Mr Burger
offered that we are moving a baby step forward. Mr Resnick asked "A
baby step toward what exactly" to which Mr Saint-Andre pointed out
that "we are more closely aligning our documentation with our
organizational running code". The organizational running code
actually sets a higher bar than what is documented in RFC 2026 for
the publication of a Proposed Standard. The draft does not even
discuss about that.
Mr Carpenter believes 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". In terms of document clarity, RFC 2026 taken together
with draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09 only reinforces the
confusion for anyone who takes the time to read BCP 9.
Mr Atkinson pointed out that a change in perception alone is
sufficient to increase [his] own motivation. Mr Burger confirmed
that the intent of the proposal is to change the perception.
Mr Halpern mentioned that the draft tries to align what we document
with what we do. In a response, Mr Klensin mentioned that the draft
addresses one provision of our processes in which documentation and
practice don't align, a provision about which there is no subtlety or
confusion within the community at all (even though new participants
may be confused)".
Mr Housley in response to one of my comments mentioned that the
argument I raised was for the status quo and added that "We have
decades of experience with that not working. That is essentially an
argument for a single maturity level; that is how the process is
really working today". As a note to the reader, I may have quoted Mr
Housley out of context. I presume that members of the IESG have
followed the discussions surrounding this draft to understand the context.
The Sponsoring Area Director mentioned that the opposing opinions
were more about a desire to do something else than specific
objections about this proposal. An Area Director generally sponsors
documents that he or she believes in. I would like to point out that
even if a desire to do something else was tabled as a proposal, my
perception is that it would be difficult to have such a proposal
sponsored by the relevant Area Director.
Mr Crocker and Mr Housley are listed as authors of STD 71 and STD 70
respectively. It would be informative if they could comment on the
impediments they came across in advancing their documents to Full
Standard. Mr Gellens and Mr Klensin might also be able to comment on
the impediments given that they are listed as the authors of a soon
to be published STD.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf