--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector
<sant9442@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
>>> --On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
>>> However, if we go straight to a one-level now, and then learn
>>> that a two-level would have been better, we would be stuck.
>...
>> But I also don't see any advantage in prolonging the
>> discussion. If I correctly understand Jari's note, the IESG
>> has decided that there is adequate consensus for this move.
>> Either people will appeal that decision after it is formally
>> announced or they won't. I would hope that, even if there is
>> an appeal, it would not reopen the discussions we have been
>> having over and over again. If no one does, or if any appeal
>> that is ultimately filed is ultimately rejected, my hope is
>> that we can all pull together to try to make this work.
>
> Do you have list of documents that might immediately benefit
> or would be top candidates to be moved to IS? Top ten?
>
> FWIW, I was wondering which BIS documents with no RFC
> publication dates would be candidates. 93 total.
Based on the first few, there are a bunch of errors in your
list. I'd think the likely candidates of this type would be
documents that have been approved, or are near approval, for
Draft Standard. The more interesting case would be documents
like 5321. There is no question about either interoperability
or wide deployment and use, but, given outstanding errata, the
list of proposed changes in the YAM preevaluation document, and
other issues that have come up, I doubt that there would be
consensus for moving the existing document to full standard. On
the other hand, this change does not increase the motivation to
do more work on it and may decrease it, so it is, as I said, and
interesting case.
A few comments about part of your list below...
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> DRAFT INITDATE
> DAYS REVS CSTATE
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------
> draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis 2011-05-06
> 128 4 RFC Ed Queue
Already published as RFC 6365, a BCP and hence irrelevant to
the "maturity level" discussion.
> draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis 2011-05-06
> 128 0 Publication Requested
In queue for publication as full/Internet standard.
Therefore presumably unaffected by this change.
> draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis 2011-05-02
> 132 0 RFC Ed Queue
See above. You appear to have counted this document at
least three times.
> draft-iesg-rfc1150bis 2011-04-22
> 142 0 RFC Ed Queue
> draft-iesg-rfc1150bis 2011-04-22
> 142 0 RFC Ed Queue
Published as RFC 6360, an informational document and hence
unaffected by this change. Note: probably counted twice.
> draft-faibish-nfsv4-pnfs-block-disk-protection 2011-03-07
> 188 0 ID Exists
I have no personal information on this document.
> draft-hoffman-rfc3536bis 2011-03-07
> 188 0 ID Exists
This document was replaced by
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis and then by RFC 6365, for which
see above.
And so on. The number using these criteria would appear to be
somewhat smaller than you believe.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf