On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 05:00:14PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly wrote: > I would like to see a two tier scheme for standards (i.e. eliminate > the illogical and misleading status 'DRAFT') but on the > understanding that standards require periodic review. By periodic I > mean that there should be fixed windows that are scheduled in > advance when the standard will be reviewed. There would be a fixed > interval in which defect reports could be submitted. One of the > topics of the general session for each area would be a report on the > defect reports and discussion of whether a new revision WG was > required. > > It might be easier to close WGs down if this was not quite so final. > Allowing a 'fast track' for defect reports would encourage proposers > to come to the IETF with complete proposals with a substantial > degree of consensus in the user and developer communities. If the > defect report is justified the need should be widely felt, if as is > likely the report is describing existing field practice addressing > that need there should not be a need for substantial discussion. > > In some cases it would be appropriate to reactivate the working > group concerned, in others a mini-WG might address multiple > protocols. The need is most common in the security area where crypto > practices need to be revised every 5 years or so. An area wide > activity describing use of SHA-256 would be an example. It seems to me that if we can't motivate people to review/evaluate/fix a proposed|draft standard once, how can we motivate them to commit to doing so periodically? Are you saying that if we allow them to slap a standard together and declare it done more easily, that they will be more willing to come back and fix it later? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf