Eric,
Thomas may well have a different answer but, speaking
personally, if we have a choice between a nominal three-step
process that is actually one-step with a few exceptions and a
nominal two-step process that is actually one-step with a few
exceptions, I think we would be much better off with a one-step
process. Ideally, we should be able to annotate that one-step
process with how mature we think a spec is, but the "facing
reality" situation is that, unless we can change how we and the
marketplace do things, we have a one-step process today and
trying to cut things from unused-three to unused-two
accomplishes nothing other than giving us an extra opportunity
to confirm our failure to be able to use a multi-step process.
I'd find a change to one-step a lot easier to support than a
change to two-step, if only because moving to one-step is not
only closer to present reality but also would give us a starting
part for new work to express maturity (if we still care).
Two-step neither gets us to present reality nor gets us away
from the idea that the multistep model actually expresses
maturity and other useful information.
john
--On Saturday, September 10, 2011 21:26 -0400 Eric Burger
<eburger-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So should we move to a one-step process?
>
> On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
>> Advancing a spec is done for marketing, political, process
>> and other reasons. E.g., to give a spec more legitimacy. Or
>> to more clear replace an older one. Nothing wrong with that.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf