On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> If all of those things are right and we're actually trying to solve
> them all, then it seems to me that the answer is indeed to move to _n_
> maturity levels of RFC, where _n_ < 3 (I propose 1), but that we
> introduce some new document series (call them TRFC, for "Tentative
> Request For Comment", or whatever) that is the first step. Then we
> get past the thing that people are optimizing for ("everything stays
> as Proposed Standard once it gets published") by simply eliminating
> that issue permanently.
>
> Ah, you say, but now things will stick at TRFC. Maybe. But we could
> on purpose make it easier to get TRFC than it is now to get PS (say,
> by adopting John's limited DISCUSS community for TRFC, or one of the
> other things discussed in this thread). Also, the argument about
> everyone thinking that RFCs are "standard", and the resulting pressure
> to make them perfect and permanent, would be explicitly relieved (at
> least for a while), because nobody thinks that TRFCs are standards.
I know how you can get it to approve first: Don't take it to the IESG. Require approval only from the ADs for that area. And don't give them a name that makes them look like some slightly different kind of RFC. Call it "blessed draft" or something like that.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf