On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:25:40PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 07-Nov-19 14:48, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:54:59AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Here's a thought experiment. > >> > >> Update the standards process such that the approval of Proposed Standard > >> RFCs, after an IETF last call including some specified cross-area review > >> requirements, is done by the WG consensus process with the consent of the AD . > >> > >> Why would that work? Because it now incents the WG chairs by making them, > >> in effect, where the buck stops. So the WG chairs and AD (typically > >> a committee of three) will feel the obligation to get everything > >> right. And it scales. > > > > So, no more IESG review? What would we need the IESG for anymore? It > > would be gone, I guess? > > Not at all. Firstly, I said *Proposed* Standard. The experiment would leave > the IESG in charge for Internet Standard. (Also for documents submitted > outside the WG process, which is rare of course.) And the criterion is > still IETF rough consensus following an IETF last call. Just trying > to eliminate a manifest bottleneck. When most of our documents are PS -when PS is the new Standard!- this really does mean doing away with IESG review. Nothing obligates anyone to do the work to move PS to DS and then S. > Secondly, they'd still be the authority for chartering, appointing > WG chairs, appointing directorates, and other aspects of overseeing > the process. Most of the duties described in RFC 2026 in fact. Sure, but picking good chairs now becomes essential, but finding chairs as good as ADs will be difficult. > > Sure, it will scale better. But quality will suffer. > > And maybe some documents will spend fewer than, say, 2 years in MISSREF. > Speed vs quality is indeed a trade-off. In the era of rapid prototyping > our timescale really looks pretty stupid. Perhaps so. But then we'd better find a way to incentivize moving PS docs to DS and S, or give up the fiction. > >> [...]. So the WG chairs and AD (typically a committee of three) [...] > > > > Typically one of the ADs is uninvolved with a WG for which the other is > > responsible, so that would be a committee of two, not three. > > Two WG chairs is almost the norm these days. But yes, the essence of > the experiment is to reduce the number of people in the decision > process - and intentionally lower the bar for Proposed Standard closer > to how it's defined in RFC2026: > A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved > known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received > significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community > interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience > might result in a change or even retraction of the specification > before it advances. > When I look at some the DISCUSSes I've seen in recent months, I really > don't think that definition is being applied. That's a fair observation. But, too, we could ask the IESG to take a lighter approach to publication as PS. > I would also add to my thought experiment a mandatory Implementation > Status section. That's stronger than RFC2026. Implementation Status for PS? But that will drag us into the I-D stability thread all over again -- it's a catch-22: how can we develop a protocol, implement it, and test it but not deploy it (despite a very strong market desire for it) without some sort of I-D stability mechanism? Nico --
