Bruce Lilly wrote:
Date: 2005-08-09 09:16
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The question on the table since RFC 3774 is: why don't we
execute the transition to Draft Standard more often,
otherwise known as: why are there so few implementation
reports at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html
(three this year, I believe)?
One issue has been identified and discussed, but as far as I know has
not been resolved. Consider RFCs 3885 through 3888 produced by the
MSGTRK working group; three of the four are Standards Track at Proposed,
all were published September 2004. The PS RFCs could have advanced to
Draft as early as March 2005 (six months) but for one problem;
advancement requires that the WG Chair produce documentation on
interoperable implementations. So why hasn't the MSGTRK WG worked on
advancement to Draft? Well, there isn't a MSGTRK WG any more (and
therefore no MSGTRK WG Chair); the IESG disbanded it. Will the IESG
reinstate the WG to advance the three Standards Track RFCs to Draft?
You're certainly correct. And the received wisdom for some years has
been that closing WGs is A Good Thing. I even got applause in plenary
for announcing that 22 WGs were closed since IETF62.
So, it would be a change in current practice to make "advance the stuff
to DS" a default goal of every WG charter. That presupposes an answer to
the question whether we need >1 stages, but the only consistent outputs
from newtrk will be "1 stage" or ">1 stages, but WGs must remain open."
I suggest we continue this over in newtrk.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf