> At 2:58 PM +0200 10/27/10, Yoav Nir wrote: > >So in answering you second question, I don't see any reason why things won't keep sticking in PS or even Experimental forever. > Here's a reason, and possibly the strongest one: author pride. If I wrote a > protocol that I was proud of and I had a strong ego (both of those are purely > hypothetical, of course...), I would want to see it move forwards and I might > spend the necessary effort to make it happen. This is a very good point, and it argues in favor of the current proposal. Consider: Right now the move to draft is, for specifications of any complexity, a very nontrivial matter. And the reward, after all is said and done, isn't a "standard", but rather a "draft standard", which to the uninitiated sounds like it's a step below proposed. You're then faced with a six month wait, followed by a fairly ill-defined process step with poorly laid out criteria. All of this significantly lowers the benefit of the proposed->draft step. I don't have to guess that this is a significant disincentive to bothering with advancement, I know it is because it's reflected in my own behavior. > Related, but not as strong of a motivator, is corporate motivation. If > WhizzyCorp helped create BlatP and implemented it in their hardware, there is > some motivation on their part to be able to say "it's a full standard". I > think personal pride would be a stronger motivator. "full standard", yes. "draft standard", not so much. Names matter. > I support going to two steps so that those motivated to get to the second > step don't have to spend the effort on a third. It makes the market for "this > protocol is more important than that one" waste fewer person-hours on process. Exactly right. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf