On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, John C Klensin wrote:
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.
FWIW, I also agree with these and that running the experiment is a good idea. I don't think I'd want to eliminate downref rule completely, but this would seem to allow explicit acknowledgement and/or justification of each downref, which would seem like a good enough for an experiment and not that much work.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf