Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many PS->IS transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published in October 2011. That RFC changed the three-step standards process to two steps. There was also a question of how this compared to previous times before that RFC got approved. Looking at the timeframe from October 2011 to today (22 months), there have been four such protocol actions. These results are given by searching the IETF Announce mail archive: 0.1000 12159 07/16/2013 Protocol Action: 'Specification of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information' to Internet Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 12036 06/04/2013 Protocol Action: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures to Internet Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 11609 01/25/2013 Protocol Action: 'Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-10.txt) iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 11510 01/03/2013 Protocol Action: 'Automated Updates of DNSSEC Trust Anchors' to Internet Standard (RFC 5011) iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx Prior to the publication of RFC 6410, in the preceding 22 months there were these 20 actions raising standards to either Draft Standard or Full Standard: 0.1000 9572 07/12/2011 Protocol Action: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Draft Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-15.txt) iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 9427 06/06/2011 Protocol Action: 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard iesg@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 9402 05/31/2011 Protocol Action: 'Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 9401 05/31/2011 Protocol Action: 'Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 9400 05/31/2011 Protocol Action: 'Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 7410 01/25/2010 Protocol Action: 'ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 6858 08/17/2009 Protocol Action: 'Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard' to BCP iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 6819 07/29/2009 Protocol Action: 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 6816 07/29/2009 Protocol Action: 'TCP Congestion Control' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 6256 03/05/2009 Protocol Action: 'RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 6069 01/14/2009 Protocol Action: 'Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4' to Draft Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 10108 12/05/2011 Protocol Action: 'The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 0.1000 9781 09/06/2011 Protocol Action: 'Message Submission for Mail' to Full Standard (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt) iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 2.3656 8034 06/21/2010 Protocol Action: 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 2.4437 7668 03/15/2010 Protocol Action: 'SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 2.2366 6876 08/19/2009 Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 2.4694 6784 07/20/2009 Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 2.2972 6783 07/20/2009 Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 2.1632 6782 07/20/2009 Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx 2.5992 6781 07/20/2009 Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)' to Full Standard iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx I should insert here the Standard disclaimer about possibly faulty search methodology or records, misunderstanding the question, or the hasty interpretation of results. In particular, the above search was not easy on ARO, involved manual steps, and I might have easily missed something. And I wish I had been able to do a database query instead. Feel free to repeat & verify my results... Jari