Re: No single problem...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



   The first part of Ted's post is excellent:

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Issue:  Documents are too slow in achieving the first rung of the
>         standards process
> 
> ------- Contributing issues:
> 
> --------> WG formation is slow, as there are now often 2 BoFs before
>           work begins
> --------> Working group activity is slow, as it pulses to physical
>           meetings
> --------> Late surprises arrive from late cross-area review (often
>           from teams) or the IESG
> ---------------> Because there is little early cross-area review after
>                  a BoF
> 
> ------- Resulting issues:
> 
> --------> Little energy remains in working groups to advance documents
>           once they do complete
> --------> The IESG sees that few documents get early re-review as part
>           of advancement, and raises the document quality requirement
>           for the first rung to prevent impact on the rest of the
>           ecosystem
> 
> ------- Results of the results:
> 
> --------> Things get slower
> --------> More work is done outside the IETF and brought in only to
>           be blessed
> --------> More of the internet-runs on Internet Drafts.
> 
> ------- Results of the results of the results:
> 
> --------> It's harder to tell which documents are actually the ones
>           you need, both because some actual Standards documents are
>           obsoleted by drafts and because some sets of drafts have
>           functional consensus and some don't.
> 
> ------- Results of the results of the results:
> 
> --------> ADs and others want more tutorial data added to the RFCs,
>           which makes producing them slower.

   (The rest of his post is less important; I won't repeat it.)

   Relatively little of this, IMHO, results from RFC 2026, so I must
admit to being a little surprised how many folks continue to argue
that we'll fix this by changing one particular part of RFC 2026 --
the number of "maturity levels".

   But, as we should have learned by now, it's human nature to grasp
onto the first "solution" you find, and grasp all the harder when
your choice is questioned.

   So be it -- I won't object to that...

   But I _do_ commend Ted's outline of the base issue; and I sincerely
hope that whatever becomes of Russ's proposal, we save some attention
for the things Ted has outlined -- because those things are the ones
we need to actually fix.

--
John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]