Eliot/Brian, This, I think, is part of the problem. To say that "it is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed Standards," is to indulge in over-simplification. And to say "we are not actually following our documented process" - is to focus on the meta-issues when the problem is with what is documented in the RFCs themselves, in many cases. One of the useful features of the current "process" is that it means the community has one or two opportunities to insist that what is technically documented is in alignment with reality. For many of the most important RFCs, it takes more than competence and an RFC to implement what's actually going to work in the Internet. A significant amount of the time it either takes lab testing, some snooping on what goes on the wire, some reverse engineering and at least one more iteration of lab testing - or it takes being on the "inside track" in dominant (or early) implementation. One of the reasons why it _looks_ like "the Internet mainly runs on Proposed Standards," is that the people who know about the difference between what's technically done, and what's technically documented, have no real incentives to get involved in efforts to document what they know - thus letting future competitors have the information for free. This is - I believe - a key factor in why most Proposed Standards do not progress to Draft Standard. This factor has come up repeatedly in the efforts to advance Proposed Standards that I've been involved in, and it usually adds years to the process. But another factor is that we (as in the IETF) aren't usually satisfied with just documenting what is really being done. For one reason or another, many of us would like to "fix" the Standard to - for example - make it consistent with protocols and specifications we've developed since then, even if that means documenting protocol behaviors that are inconsistent with what is really being done. These factors just adds to the burden. Because it is not easy to progress along the standards track, many (if not most) Proposed Standards only roughly document what the Internet runs on. I would argue that "Proposed Standard" as the end-of-the-line in our standardization process is just wrong. I certainly can see an argument for merging "Proposed" and "Draft" - but there are lots of indications that even the simplified one-step process of moving from Draft to full Standard would not get done much of the time. There are examples of ways to deal with this difficulty from other standards groups. The issue we need to decide as a group is whether we're happy with our (slightly) imperfect process, or we would like to adopt (and/or modify) someone else's. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@xxxxxxxxx] --> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 4:13 AM --> To: Brian E Carpenter --> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about --> mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process] --> --> Brian E Carpenter wrote: --> > Phill, --> > --> >> As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active --> >> participants that produces on average less than 3 --> standards a year --> >> and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification. --> > --> > It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed --> > Standards, --> > so the appropriate metric is how many Proposed Standards the IETF --> > produces --> > a year. I think you will find that is more than three. --> --> I have to agree. Going back to the numbers I posted to --> NEWTRK in March: --> --> Status 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 --> ------------------------------------------------------------- --> PS 102 119 71 105 103 131 169 --> --> --> --> This represents a tremendous amount of work by many people. And so --> while I *do* believe we have process problems, they are --> largely of the --> form that we are not actually following our documented --> process. I also --> believe that we need to be more nimble when it comes to changing our --> processes. I would like to see both of those problems --> corrected in due --> course. --> --> I have not done the work to review velocity from -00 to --> RFC, but perhaps --> Bill Fenner has. --> --> Eliot --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf