Barry,
Question, in-line.
On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
I mostly agree with this draft, but I have a concern. Let's anchor
that concern off of this bit that Jari said:
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.
It's certainly clear to all of us that most PS specs are far more
mature than what we thought about when we wrote RFC 2026.
The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
baked? This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and
robust. If we like being in that room, that's fine. But it removes
the "IESG can put fuzzy stuff out as PS if it thinks that's the right
thing to do" option.
Wouldn't such spec come with an applicability statement of sorts? (today, in
practice?)
It says that IETF PS specs are "at least as mature as final standards
from other" SDOs. Mostly, that's true. But it doesn't have to be.
After this, it would have to be, always, for every PS spec. Are we
*sure* that's what we want?
This draft is mostly targeted to document what we do, not what we want.
Although I can see how you want to keep the door open.
--Olaf.