--On Wednesday, 11 November, 2009 23:01 -0500 Tony Hansen
<tony@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Raise the bar more? Not at all -- that's not what I said. I
> said that the bar has *already been raised* so high that many
> of our I-Ds have already become fully interoperable before
> they get an RFC number assigned.
>
> What I said, is that if you *have* interoperability and
> deployment when you get the RFC number assigned, go ahead and
> get published at DS or FS status.
>
> Unless there are errata, changing the status from PS to DS to
> FS should be an administrative task, not a
> wait-for-full-revision-taking-X-years chore.
Tony,
I'm very sympathetic to this. But I note two things. The first
is that the powers that be have decided that the clock doesn't
start running until a document is actually published -- one
cannot start counting from approval without some changes in
procedures (or at least in interpretation). Second, one of the
big things we often accomplish when moving to Draft is a giant
increase in document quality. IMO, we should be encouraging
that by not holding up publication at Proposed for fine details
of document quality (as long as there are no "known technical
defects"), leaving document fine-tuning for PS-> DS. That
objective runs a little counter to what you are suggesting, I
think.
> And yes, the above statements are *fully* in line with "use
> the current process better."
Plus or minus some modifications.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf