On Sep 2, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Olaf, Scott,
Apologies for a late reply on this (I was on vacation after the IETF). But
thank you for writing this draft. My general comment is that the draft makes
what in my mind is an accurate correction to our documents, aligning the
documents to the current reality. I'd be happy to take the document forward.
In fact, I think we need to make this change even if we made other, more long
term changes.
There is at least one ongoing effort right now that has the potential to
reclassify a large set of Proposed Standard RFCs that form the basis of
widely used technology. These types of efforts can have a relatively big
effect on the standards status of the most commonly used RFCs. Do we want to
do more? Can we do more?
seems like a quite bad idea (as Randy points out)
take extra effort and get some interoperability data
Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the
original mode of operation, i.e., making PS RFCs truly early and somewhat
untested specifications. I am personally opposed to that on the following
grounds. First, it would not change the fact that a large part of Internet
technology today runs on PS RFCs, and Olaf's problem with getting these RFCs
recognised would continue. Second, while I think we need to keep adjusting
the level of review performed by the IESG and in IETF Last Call (we sometimes
overdo it), I think broad review is actually useful.
imo - not a chance in hell of the IESG going back to the original meaning of PS
it is not in the IESG genetics, nor has it been for quite a while
But enough about my opinions. What do the rest of you think?
In terms of specific text, I also wrote a few observations, below. These are
purely personal comments.
First, I think you assumed this but never made it explicit. While the new
characterisation recognises the often final role of PS RFCs, it does not take
away the possibility of publishing Internet Standard specifications. Can this
be clarified?
In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC202] the IESG
has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs and thus
RFC 2026 section 4.1.1 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed
Standards.
I'd prefer saying "the IETF review processes Proposed Standard RFCs have
evolved". And leave the details to Section 2.
2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards
Review
In response,
the IESG strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically
operating as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the
IESG to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the
standards document.
That is part of it, but I think the situation is more complicated than that.
The world changed around us, and suddenly Internet was big business, global,
and we got more careful about impacts to it. The process has evolved,
including the number of steps in the ladder. Review practices in general have
changed quite a lot, we now have a fairly broad review of RFCs.
Progression has also varied, mostly downwards. But as noted, it also seems
very much affected by specific initiatives.
Here's what I'd say:
Initially it was assumed that most IETF technical specifications
would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with
a relatively early Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard
then, finally,
to Internet Standard (see RFC 2026 section 6). Over time, for a
number of reasons, this progression became less common. At the same time,
the review for Proposed Standard RFCs was strengthened.
This strengthening was partially a response by the IESG for the above,
and in part a consequence of the growth in the importance of the
Internet and broader interest in reviewing new Internet technology.
At the time of this writing, the IETF operates
as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the
to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the
standards document. The result is that IETF Proposed Standards
approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review.
Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards
should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from
other standards development organizations. In fact, the IETF review
is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to the cross-area
technical review performed in the IETF.
wfm
Jari