RFC3844 and IETF Core Values

[Hector <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
>> Advancing a spec is done for marketing, political, process and other
>> reasons. E.g., to give a spec more legitimacy. Or to more clear
>> replace an older one. Nothing wrong with that.

Eric Burger wrote:

> So should we move to a one-step process?

I asked the great visionary sayer - google, the question:

             What is the IETF Purpose?

and got this top result link:

      http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/iesg/purpose.php

Alvestrand's conclusion states it as a QA problem which I personally 
agree with:

    A problem in the first 2 bullets is that we have a quality control
    problem - if the WG proposals or the WG consensus documents are not
    high quality, speed will drop like a stone - and SHOULD. We need
    metrics to capture this, somehow.

The search also provided a link to RFC3844,"IETF Problem Resolution 
Process"

Reading RFC3844 now for the first time, seems to have a down a darn 
good job of laying out all the issues in 2002 and thats to be still 
true today, in 2011.

Says in its intro:

    1. Introduction

    ...
    This document begins with an outline of what are currently thought to
    be the purpose and core values of the IETF, and it offers a reminder
    of the good things about the IETF that we don't want to lose in the
    process of solving our problems.

and says pretty profoundly in section 2:

    2. IETF Purpose and Core Values

    As we consider how to address the problems with the IETF processes
    and organizational structure, it is important to keep in mind the
    things about the IETF that we don't want to change -- our sense of
    purpose, and the core values that give the IETF its unique identity.

And it list the items that were concluded in 2002 as non-core values 
that could be considered for change in section 2.1:

   - The division into WGs and Areas
   - The three-step standards process
   - The ASCII format for RFCs and I-Ds
   - The format of IETF meetings
   - The structure of WG mailing lists
   - The powers of the IESG and IAB

and says:

   These things were designed to help us achieve our goals in a way that
   is consistent with our core values.  If they are no longer effective,
   we can and should change them.

I disagree that any of these has shown not the be effective, in 
particular the one on topic with "The Three-step standards process" 
which can only be viewed as a way to bypass the results of these tools 
in keeping core-values.

In section 3, it highlights there ideas that is has put the IETF in a 
bind:

    - Economics,  Commercialization and Convergence.

I personally agree these are the realities, but don't think it should 
alter the essential IETF core values.

--
HLS