--On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 14:27 -0400 Ross Callon
<rcallon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is where I disagree with you. The simple change that Russ
> has proposed is not what is taking away from discussion of the
> actual barriers. What is taking attention away from discussion
> of the actual barriers is the lengthy debate about Russ's
> proposed change.
Ross, I can't speak for Dave or anyone else, but I think part of
the disagreement here is that some of us don't see this as a
"simple change". From my point of view, it is quite drastic
because it eliminates a three stage model for those protocols
and groups for which it works, doesn't provide a way to undo the
change if it turns out to be a bad idea, and has not been
demonstrated (empirically or logically) to have any effect on
the number of documents that advance from Stage 1 to Stage 2.
As Dave points out, our history has been that the perception
that it is hard to get to Draft (or that many documents stop at
Proposed) has led to our making it hard to get to Proposed.
There is no evidence that this change would have any effect on
that pattern; it might even make it worse by eliminating the
"extra chance to get it right".
Worse, it seems to combine several different measures, including:
(1) Dropping Internet Standard and Renaming Draft to
Internet Standard. But it doesn't quite do that because
it also drops the requirements for identification of
deployment and usefulness that go with Internet
Standard, substituting only the "two independent
interoperable" implementations of Draft.
(2) Changing the Normative Reference rules by dropping
them, with no consideration of side effects.
(3) Posing an alternative between keeping STD numbers as
they now exist and dropping them entirely, without
considering a third path, which has been proposed
several times: assigning those numbers at Proposed (or
even somewhat earlier). That possibility has apparently
been dismissed as addressing a different problem but the
discussion of STD numbers remains in the document.
A small and simple change would either modularize these and
discuss and make them one at a time or would explain why they
are linked.
> Russ's proposed change is a small step in the right direction.
And we disagree both about whether it is a small step and
whether it is in the right direction.
>...
> In my opinion the fact that this very simple and
> straightforward change draws such heavy debate is a
> disincentive to anyone who would propose other additional
> changes.
A different way to look at this would be to suggest that the way
this document has been handled -- disallowing both smaller, more
modular, and more incremental changes and more sweeping ones
that might have higher payoff in the process-- is a disincentive
to any serious thinking about what problems we are trying to
solve and how particular approaches might solve them.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf