Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
> Where things become difficult is at the point where the maintenance
> of our standards need to be explained and questions about progression
> on the standards ladder get asked. 
> 
> Personally I hope that RFC 6410 has the effect that we, as a community,
> get serious about promoting our proposed standards, or obsolete them. 
> 
> I wonder how many standards got promoted after 6410 was published.

One significant problem is that in the few working groups (in the security
area) that I'm tracking, there appears to be a constituency behind every
(formally provable) breakage and every non-trivial omission that makes
it impossible to ever progress the documents beyong proposed.

And the IESG seems OK with waiving the breakage when documents are
recycled on proposed, rather than requiring WGs to fix it when
problems are identified during LC of a bis document.

-Martin





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]