On the issue of whether we have a de facto one-step process, the real question is not whether subsequent steps are ever invoked, but whether the subsequent steps actually have any practical impact on the Internet. One can certainly point to a handful of cases where the subsequent steps are invoked, but the point is that it makes no difference to the Internet whether the subsequent steps are invoked or not. So I think it is quite accurate to say that we have a de facto one-step process. It is thus logical for advocates of the one-step process to argue that we in fact have more or less what we need, and to be skeptical of anything that might result in giving more credence to (or even calling more attention to) the subsequent steps. The real problem with the process is that a protocol can be widely deployed in multiple interoperable implementations for six or seven years before its specification even achieves this one step. This can happen because the WG gets inundated with idiots, and/or because companies are using the IETF as a marketing battleground, and/or because the IESG deliberately tries to obstruct progress, and/or because the security ADs require you to figure out the insanely complicated endsystem-oriented security architecture so you can explain why you don't need to adhere to it. I'm pretty sure there is no IESG-wide consensus on how to address these issues, but if one has suffered through any of these multiple year delays, one is likely to oppose anything that reeks of "more process". This can lead one to be suspicious even of writeups that claim to be "descriptive", as the writeups may (whether intended to do so or not) serve to extend the life of various problematical processes that might wither away faster if they were never written down. Sometimes it's just better to leave well enough alone. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf