On Friday, September 29, 2006 11:28:56 PM +0200 Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My point here is that the three step process is not used as intended. Existing practice clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of our work - far more than intended - never reaches beyond PS. This is reality. Simply documenting that fact in a new RFC2026bis would be to say, "Our standards are broken and we know they're broken." That's not what motivated me to write a draft. What motivated me to write a draft was that it's important that we say what we do and we do what we say.
Then write that. We have a process which defines three stages and what has to happen to progress to each stage. Where reality diverges from RFC2026 is that 2026 specifies particular timelines for reviewing documents and progressing them along the standards track, while what actually happens is that documents are progressed only when someone cares enough about them to make it happen. As your graph shows, we published documents at all three levels last year.
We could eliminate one or both of the extra steps entirely, or become more agressive about actually making them happen, or do any of a wide variety of other things to make them happen. But none of those would be consistent with current practice, which is to progress documents beyond PS if and only if someone cares enough to make it happen.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf