Re: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)

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

 



Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> When I re-write the advance mechanics draft, I will propose something
> along the following lines:
> 
> 1) A WG snapshot-like status achieved after agreement by the working
>    group and a posting by the WG chair to IETF-announce notifying the
>    wider community and inviting review (presumably by review teams).
>    Any document may reference this level for any level of maturity;
>    it is not just functionally archival, but a recognized state.
> 
> 2) A status called "IETF Standard" that is reached after the current
>    (real) procedures for Proposed.
> 
> 3) A status called "Internet Standard" reached when an "IETF Standard"
>    has spent at least 3 years as an "IETF Standard" without any errata,
>    objections, or the creation of a -bis or -ter effort. A new document
>    may be issued to correct errata without requiring re-spinning in
>    "IETF Standard" grade.
> 
> This is either a 3-stage document model or a 1-stage, depending on
> whether you are counting labels or trips through the IESG.

   I think this deserves some discussion. One trip through the IESG has
definite merit...

   In practice, I-Ds have become archival already. I think a WG deserves
to be empowerd to label one or more I-Ds as universally citable.

   Formalized, hopefully earlier, review seems like a good thing.

   WG Snapshot seems like an OK name...

   One trip through the IESG to get Proposed Standard status has been
honed to about as efficient a process as we can hope for. The glitches,
IMHO, are heavily correlated with deficiencies in cross-area review.

   I see little reason, though, to change the name from "Proposed Standard."
And, IMHO, the RFC 2026 specifications for Proposed Standard are pretty
good. I'd ask for pretty strong justification for changing either the
name or the RFC 2026 definition.

   As to what follows Ted's Step Two, I think that needs work; but the
idea of formalizing something which doesn't require another trip through
the IESG sounds promising.

--
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]