Re: IESG Area Structure and Last night's missing question

I'd actually prefer that *Proposed Standard* RFCs would drop in "quality",
and the number of documents being advanced to IS (with a higher quality) went
up.

The bar between ID -> PS is already too high in my opinion, and it
contributes to the IETF "being too slow".  It means ADs are being excessively
loaded.

That is, I don't know what to make of "RFC quality" -- even those words
re-inforce the external view that all our documents are equivalent, and
I know that Keith and Adrian know that isn't true.

I also, (like Persig's Phaedrus) realize that quality is what you make of it,
and it's very hard to quantify.  So if we were ask what the quality of the
STD stream, it might be difficult to do that without some quantifiable
measures.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature