Re: PS Characterization Clarified

["Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>]

fwiw - I would love for the IESG to exercise flexibility here 
but I have not seen that in many years - so I think we are already there
without a discernible path back

Scott

On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
 wrote:

> I mostly agree with this draft, but I have a concern.  Let's anchor
> that concern off of this bit that Jari said:
> 
>> Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the original
>> mode of operation, i.e., making PS RFCs truly early and somewhat untested
>> specifications. I am personally opposed to that on the following grounds. First,
>> it would not change the fact that a large part of Internet technology today runs
>> on PS RFCs, and Olaf's problem with getting these RFCs recognised would
>> continue. Second, while I think we need to keep adjusting the level of review
>> performed by the IESG and in IETF Last Call (we sometimes overdo it), I think
>> broad review is actually useful.
> 
> It's certainly clear to all of us that most PS specs are far more
> mature than what we thought about when we wrote RFC 2026.
> 
> The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
> always more mature than that -- we can't go back.  Do we *really* want
> to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
> baked?  This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and
> robust.  If we like being in that room, that's fine.  But it removes
> the "IESG can put fuzzy stuff out as PS if it thinks that's the right
> thing to do" option.
> 
> It says that IETF PS specs are "at least as mature as final standards
> from other" SDOs.  Mostly, that's true.  But it doesn't have to be.
> After this, it would have to be, always, for every PS spec.  Are we
> *sure* that's what we want?
> 
> Barry