Russ, I'd like to make a suggestion that I hope you will find helpful. We've now got your/the IESG's two-step proposal, Dave's alternative, discussions about going directly to single step, an orthogonal proposal about STD numbers (or an alternative), some other suggestions that haven't made it as far as I-Ds, and probably some things I've missed or forgotten. To a greater or lesser extent, each of these has produced a flurry of comments on the list. Those flurries have mostly occurred just before or during IETF when some of us can't manage to read messages that are not absolutely critical-path. They also create a lot of noise for those who aren't interested and may cause relevant discussions of other topics to be lost. For protocol specs, our normal way to sort of competing and variant proposals is to form a WG. We know that doesn't work well for procedural documents. Partially as an experiment, would you consider creating a separate list, pointing the discussion there, and appointing a rapporteur or two with responsibility for figuring out when discussions have stabilized and then coming back to the IETF list with a summary of that stability point, tradeoffs, etc.? I'm not at all sure it would work but, if it did, it would save us time and likely result in a better result. Worth a try? john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf