Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 12/14/2012 06:09 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> I've been trying to say out of this because I think most of the
> suggestions are better carried out by AD-encouraged experiments
> and reports to the rest of us on effectiveness rather than by
> long discussions in the community about details and the costs of
> an unnecessary consensus process.
>
> However, since I gather we are pushing (or being pushed) down
> this path, let me suggest that approval of an IETF spec,
> especially a standards-track one, has (or should have) elements
> of all of the following:
>
> (1) A conviction that the idea is implementable and that the
> ideas expressed are consistent with implementation (and,
> ideally, operational realities.
>
> (2) Specification of sufficient quality to make
> independently-developed interoperable implementations by people
> who were not part of the WG or development process possible and
> specifically that there are no ambiguities that could adversely
> affect interoperable implementations.  This includes, but is not
> limited to, editorial quality in terms of good technical
> English, but does not include "good idea" criteria (see (4)).
>
> (3) "No known technical defects" in the spec (the RFC 2026
> requirement).  Note that, while an implementation might turn up
> technical defects that might otherwise be unknown, it might
> easily not turn up ones that could be identified in other ways.
> It should imply a fairly comprehensive review that would have a
> high likelihood of turning up any technical defects that are
> present, but we all know that sometimes doesn't happen.
>
> (4) Some level of IETF consensus that publishing the
> specification has value for the community.  This might or might
> not include a community belief that the document specifies a
> good idea that should be implemented and deployed (the latter is
> why we have Applicability Statements).
to this I'd add

(5) Widespread, examined belief that the specification has minimal 
impact on the Internet architecture.

I keep seeing IETF standardize protocols that seem likely to have 
seriously damaging architectural impact without much, if any, 
examination of that impact (the PCP and MIF work come most immediately 
to mind, but I could cite several others given a few minutes to think 
about it).  I'd hate to see a fast-tracking procedure used as a way to 
further circumvent such examination.

Keith