At 11:27 30-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
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.
"Changing the Internet Standards Process from three maturity levels
to two is intended to create an environment where lessons from
implementation and deployment experience are used to improve
specifications". The change could be rated as a non-change if there
were only four specification moved to Internet Standard since then.
The hurdle in moving a specification (not a RFC) from PS to IS is
that the draft goes through IESG Evaluation again. As for public
review, it can be a hurdle too as the pervious discussions can be
rehashed. A PS specification which sticks to what goes over the wire
turns these hurdles into a lesser effort.
draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00 proposes a nice fix and it might
even help lessen time to publication.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Olaf asked the question to the correct body.