Scott: Just to clarify, do you think that it would be better to document "one step" or do you think that the community should not spend time on this topic at all? On 10/25/2010 10:48 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > >> I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this >> proposal or dropping it > > I do not think this proposal fixes any known problems > > the major reason (imo) that technology is not advanced along the > standards track is because there is no need to do so. > > someone labors for a while to get a proposed standard published and > people start to use it (if they did not start at the Internet Draft stage) > soon about anyone that has a need for the technology has implemented it and > it is being used by customers all over the globe > > just what is the reason that someone would take time from working on new > technology to do the work to advance the proposed standard? it is unlikely > that all that many more people will implement or use the technology > so what is the point? > > in addition, the IESG acts as if the proposed standard will be the last step > in the publication process (or at least reviews IDs as if this were the case) > so we have all the benefits of the cross area review (this making the proposed standards > about as good as one could without requiring interoperable implementations at the > first stage (i.e. bringing back running code)) > > so I say drop it and live with the fact that rfc 2026 does not paint an accurate > picture of the current one step standard process > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf