On 31/07/2013 06:27, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 16:41 +0200 IETF Chair
> <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>> ...
>> 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:
>> ...
>> 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,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Disclaimers and possible small classification errors aside and
> being careful to avoid making causal assumptions, I believe that
> the implication of the above is that there is no evidence that
> the 3 -> 2 transition has increased the number of documents
> being moved or promoted out of Proposed Standard. If one were
> to assume a causal relationship and an absence of external
> confounding variates or processes, one might even conclude the
> the 3 -> 2 transition has made things quite a lot worse.
> Conversely, it seems to me that one could argue that the change
> has made things better only by demonstrating the existence of a
> process that would have led to considerably fewer than four
> documents being moved out of Proposed Standard in the last 22
> months in the absence of the change.
>
> While the apparently-significant reduction in documents moved
> out of Proposed Standard is far worse than we expected, is it
> time for Scott Bradner and myself to review
> draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00, issue a new version, and
> start a serious discussion about that model of a solution?
> Would be willing to sponsor such a draft or, if you prefer,
> organize a WG or equivalent to consider it?
I would rephrase it as performing the inverse operation to RFC 4450.
I don't think it needs to be a fully-fledged experiment under RFC 3933;
just a large batch of PS->IS promotions in one go under RFC 6410.
It is a good idea.
Brian