On 31st July 2011, Brian Carpenter wrote, in part: > I believe that the present situation is confusing both to IETF newcomers > (who may falsely believe that the IETF actually follows the 3 stage process) > and, worse, confusing to users of IETF standards (who may falsely believe > that a document isn't useful until it's advanced). We, and those users, > gain by reducing the confusion. (Note: I did not write "eliminating the > confusion".) I agree totally with Brian's assessment. > It defines a practice which is *very* close to present practice, > apart from a minor name change. I think that's the best we can do, > but that's why it's a baby step, not a no-op. Also agreed. > It might cause a change, simply because the effort of making the single > move PS->IS will get you to the end state, whereas previously you had > to make two efforts, PS->DS->STD. But only time will tell if this changes > our collective behaviour. Making this process change definitely will change my attitude towards trying to advance standards-track RFCs that I am directly involved with. Until now, the process overhead to move from PS to STD was far too great to justify the time spent. My perception is that this change reduces the process work substantially -- and a change in perception (i.e. "perception" by itself) is sufficient to increase my own motivation to make the attempt. While perception normally varies widely between individuals, on virtually all topics, I am not alone in in the view I've expressed just above. Yours, Ran _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf