The result is that the criteria for proposed today are more than sufficient for a draft standard.
As many people have pointed out, the use Informational and Experimental means that we will still have scope for a three step process in cases where it is relevant.
I completely disagree with Martin Rex on this one. We have tried to make a broken system work for twenty years. The issues Russ is raising now have been raised before. The people who argued to give the system as written one last chance got their way last time. THEY MUST NOT GET THEIR WAY AGAIN.
We have been there and done that. Trying to make the broken system work didn't work last time. There is no reason to expect a different outcome if we try the same thing the same way yet another time. That is the definition of insanity according to someone famous.
Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should have a say. So much for bottom up organization.
I think that we need to be assured that this time the ground rules for debate will be different and that either the IESG is going to accept the need for change or at the very least reveal who objected and what their reasons were.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave:
This observation was based on many hallway discussions with many people
over many years. You are correct to observe that there are many factors
at play, and many of them were discussed at the mic in plenary. The
draft changes process in many different places. I've attempted to
balance many differnt things in this proposal. Only community
discussion will determine if the balance is acceptable.
There is always risk in process changes. The goal is to make changes
where the benefits outweigh the risk.
Russ
On 6/23/2010 5:25 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> Russ,
>
> In reading the latest version of your proposal, I finally realized that
> a motivating premise:
>
>> o Since many documents are published as Proposed Standard and never
>> advances to a higher maturity level, the initial publication
>> receives much more scrutiny that is call for by RFC 2026 [1].
>
> is well-intentioned, sounds reasonable, but is actually without any
> practical foundation. In other words, we do not know that the premise
> is valid.
>
> There are many likely reasons that the process of getting through the
> IESG, for Proposed, has become such a high burden. (Perhaps you did not
> mean to limit the reference to mean only IESG scrutiny, but in formal
> terms, it really is the only one that matters, in terms of 'scrutiny'.)
>
> I think that a detached and thorough exploration of those possible
> reasons is likely to show that the problem pre-dates the move towards
> leaving documents at Proposed and, in fact, well might have contributed
> to it. By virtue of having Proposed be so difficult to attain, there is
> a disincentive for going through the process again, for the same protocol.
>
> A tendency for all of us in this kind of topic is to make simple
> assertions of cause or of likely behavioral change that sound reasonable
> but have little empirical basis.
>
> We need to be careful to avoid falling into that trap, because the
> changes being discussed are strategic, and could well be impossible to
> reverse completely...
>
> d/
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf