Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> --On Monday, 12 June, 2006 12:20 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >...
> >>> The  real underlying  problem of  course  is the  the
> >>> multi-stage  standards process is just a relic from another
> >>> time, and makes no sense at all in the current environment.
> >>> Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but a
> >>> distraction.
> >>
> >> For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments
> >> (and have so stated on the newtrk mailing list).
> >
> > I'd like to ask people who *don't* agree with the above
> > sentiments
> > (i.e. who support this experimental process change) to say so,
> > before
> > the Last Call ends in two days. (Obviously, people who *do*
> > agree are welcome
> > to say so too, but a problem with Last Calls is that it's very
> > hard to
> > judge whether silence means consent.)

> FWIW, I still think the approach in the draft is a good idea
> given that...

> (1) We have not been able to get consensus eliminating a
> multistep standard process.   For reasons explained elsewhere, I
> personally consider that eliminating that process would be a bad
> idea, but that is another discussion.   The present reality is
> that we don't have that consensus and that blocking incremental
> improvements within it is a strange form of "see if we can make
> things worse so as to build momentum for a more basic change".
> I don't believe in that style of doing things.

> (2) We have had repeated claims that the downref issue is a
> major cause of perceived IETF slowness in getting documents out
> and, especially, of getting documents to advanced maturity
> level.  I think that validating (or invalidating) those claims
> would be helpful as a goal in itself.  If it results in a
> significant number of documents being advanced, that would be a
> good thing.  If it results in few or no documents being
> advanced, then we know that particular argument is not a
> significant part of the picture, and that would, itself, be
> useful.

I agree with both of these points. One signs of a good experiment is that you
learn something from it no matter what the outcome. I see nothing but upside
here and fully support running this process experiment.

				Ned

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]