On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:07:43PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > I was not a fan of the proposal to designate an Internet-Draft as a stable > document, because I felt that it was basically creating a new level of > document status. (Another hurdle) > > Your proposal is almost the same, but I like it because I feel that instead > of adding a hurdle, it is removing one. > > Would you consider if these new documents are *RFC*s or, would you consider > if we could make a new document series for these documents? I would suggest > that it become the *Proposed Standard* series. That is, we'd change our > first step to not be an *RFC*. Now this is appealing. Perception counts for a lot. "RFCxxxx" == "Standard" in many minds. So giving PS docs a PSRFCxxxx w/o a corresponding RFCxxxx would help a lot. > I believe that this would solve the problems that the stable-document > proponents were trying to create, while not adding a new step to the process. > > I would want such RFCPS or WGPS, etc. to go through the RPC. > This fixes all the english, references, etc. issues, and of course causes > IANA assignments. > > Upon being finished processing, the exact XML would be returned to the WG to > collect errata, interop experience and clarification, setting things up for > the "bis" document that would then be ready for Internet Standard (RFC). > > This also synchronizes our notion of what an RFC is with what the industry > thinks is an RFC. +1. Nico --
