--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker
<fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> What's also not fair game is to "raise the bar" - to expect
>> the document at DS to meet more stringent criteria than it
>> was required to meet at the time of PS approval.
>
> Hmmm, the "demonstrated interoperability" requirement of DS/IS
> is in fact a raising of the bar,and one that has served us
> well. We don't (although IMHO we should) require even an
> implementation to go to PS.
I know it is controversial, but there is at least one other area
in which we should be raising the bar for DS/IS by dropping the
bar for Proposed. If we really want to get PS specs out quickly
while the percentage of people who easily write very high
quality technical English in the IETF continues to go down, we
need to stop the behavior of various IESG members simulating
technical editors or translators to "fix" PS text (or insisting
that the author or WG do so, which, IMO, is less bad but still
often a problem). Doing that will get documents out faster,
perhaps even a lot faster in some cases, but will inevitably
result in PS documents that need significant editorial work
before being approved at DS.
I think that would actually be a good thing. I think that
stuffing explicit placeholders to the effect of "this needs to
be rewritten to be completely clear to folks who haven't
participated in the WG" into PS documents would be a fine idea
-- it would get those documents finished and out while making
their preliminary nature very clear. But it implies a higher
editorial quality standard --a higher bar-- for DS/IS than for
PS.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf