Scott O. Bradner wrote: > ... > the only way that could happen is if the IESG were to change their ways > a lot > and permit less complete documents to be published as PS Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already changing their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a personal I-D to become a WG draft. I don't think that is the direction of change you were looking for though. ;) FWIW: I support the goal of removing the useless state of DS, but I see Russ's draft as more of a starting point for discussion than a reasonable destination. As many others have said, the most pressing problem is getting past the IESG in the first place, and given there is evidence they are going to be attacking I-Ds, it is clear that this document does nothing to help with the core problem. The best it does is to reduce some of the external confusion, but it doesn't even really do that well since most outside parties equate "RFC" with "Full Standard". What we really need to do is make the process simple: Personal I-D gathers interest WG chair gauges interest - establishes WG doc (AD is explicitly overruled if necessary) WG I-D presented to Area - Area AD enables publication as PS RFC Full IESG reviews requests to move from PS to IS, and doesn't get in the way before that. This does not preclude cross-area review and comments at any point along the way, and in fact an AD would be wise to seek out comment from other areas. What it does is restore the state when the IETF was productive and relevant. It is effectively a 4 stage doc process rather than the 5 stage one today. Getting the major hurdle of IESG review out of the way of the step to generate initial archival documents is the big win here, both in terms of workload on the IESG and the ability of the IETF to be public about its evolutionary steps. Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf