Dave: The questions that you raise will be discussed for 30 minutes at the front of the Wednesday plenary at IETF 78. The next step is to find out what the community thinks about these choices. I fully expect there to be changes to the draft after that discussion. As you say, we really want to see improvement, not just change. Russ On 6/20/2010 2:10 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > Russ, > > Thanks for reviving this topic. As the YAM working group has been > finding, trying to elevate even the most well-established and > widely-used protocols to Full standard remains problematic. > > As your Acknowledgments section cites, your proposal nicely adds to the > considerable repertoire of variations that explore how to simplify things. > > What is less clear is the model or theory or perspective that makes this > particular variation the one to prefer. Perhaps it does indeed offer > the best result, but what is the basis for deciding? > > The fact that few protocols have sought Draft, nevermind Full, status is > a rather strong indication that the industry does not care about or need > either. Absent changes in the criteria for a label and/or the process > for achieving a second (or third) status level, what is going to > motivate the community to behave differently? > > Interoperability testing used to be an extremely substantial > demonstration of industry interest and of meaningful learning. The > resulting repair and streamlining of specifications was signficant. If > that's still happening, I've been missing the reports about lessons > learned, as well as indications that significant protocol > simplifications have resulted. While the premise of streamlining > specifications, based on interoperability testing, is a good one, where > is the indication that it is (still) of interest to industry? (I > believe that most protocols reaching Proposed these days already have > some implementation experience; it's still not required, but is quite > common, no?) > > My own proposal was to have the second status level simply take note of > industry acceptance. It would be a deployment and use acknowledgement, > rather than a technical assessment. That's not meant to lobby for it, > but rather give an example of a criterion for the second label that is > different, cheap and meaningful. By contrast, history has demonstrated > that Draft is expensive and of insufficient community interest. We > might wish otherwise, but community rough consensus on the point is > clear. We should listen to it. > > Since your proposal is to use the existing criteria for Draft as the > second label, why should we expect it to be more popular than it has been? > > It's clear that our 3-stage model is not working. In my view, YAM is > demonstrating that, frankly, it's not /going/ to. The cost is too high > and the benefit is too low. We ought to change that because, well, the > current situation is embarrassing. > > But in making the change, there should be a fairly strong basis for > believing that the new model will be successful. > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf