I think this is one of the best discussions of what we're
about that I've seen anywhere, and I'm grateful to John
for working this through.
One thing I'd like to take up further is this:
On 5/29/13 9:23 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Similarly, we sometimes hear it argued that we should accept a
specification for Proposed Standard unchanged because it has
been extensively developed and reviewed elsewhere. That may be
reasonable in some cases although I'd hope we wouldn't make it
a common practice. But, if a specification adopted for
Proposed Standard on that basis is then proposed for
advancement to Internet Standard, I think the review should be
comprehensive --perhaps even more comprehensive than the usual
such review-- because the Internet Standard is unambiguously an
IETF product and recommendation not that of the other body.
I'd actually much prefer to see these go to informational, if
they're to be published. Otherwise I agree - if something's going
to be an IETF standard it needs to go through the IETF standards
development review and revision process, which is probably not
what the authors want.
Melinda