All that is being proposed here is a modest change that brings out documented practices in line with the actual practice. Documenting actual practice is usually a necessary step before attempting a change.
We have tried to bring actual practice in line with the three step process on several occasions and they have all failed.
The cost of the status quo is that it diminishes the influence of the IETF in the Internet community and it means that we spend an amazing amount of time discussing proposals to change a process that absolutely nobody will stand up and make a positive case for.
'Needs more time for discussion' is not a positive case for the current scheme. We have had a decade of discussion and plenty of time for alternative proposals.
'The alternatives may be worse' is not a positive case when we all agree that we are not using the current documented process and cannot make it work.
The only case I can see for not making this change is that it may forestall more substantial changes such as introducing a protocol maintenance process like the ITU has with defect reports and so on. But I don't think it is practical to expect that to happen and I don't think that anyone making that case is an advocate for more radical change in any case.
If the two step process is accepted, the positive outcome will be that instead of the majority of Internet STANDARD status documents being obsoleted, the majority of STANDARD status documents will be the most current documentation of the corresponding protocol.
This is the least effort means of reaching that result. It is a useful and necessary step.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phillip politely says
> I think this is nonsense.since I see no reason to think that the proposed changes will do
> We have been discussing this for over a decade. Time for debate is up. It is
> time to make a decision.
anything at all to address any of the problems that I, and others, have
brought up (incuding the 'nothing progresses' problem) I have decided
I see no reason that we should make a change that is very likely to
not fix any known problem just because we have been talking about
various ideas for change for a long time - length of debate is not
an indication of usefulness of solution
it would not be the end of the IETF if this gets published but
it will also not be the begining of a better IETF - all of the
problems will still be there and we would have a meaningless change
just so we can say we made a change
Scott
_______________________________________________
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