Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 29 September 2006 22:49 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTRB0-00051W-W4; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:49:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTRAz-00051Q-BS for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:49:49 -0400
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTRAx-0004mf-Uc for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:49:49 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1GTRAv-000ELB-47; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:49:45 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:49:44 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <A66AC54274A81274B7AD8FAD@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <1A6ADEC7749C23CA618CA298@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
References: <451A48F7.2010806@cisco.com> <tslzmckk74b.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <E12314B3B3FA0BB66AFA1BB2@p3.JCK.COM> <01M7PWAE5OZA0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com> <B5B84892CDC9AA2B98CCC9E1@p3.JCK.COM> <451CBB32.6020705@cisco.com> <140B84CE39AF93FBE6E0367B@p3.JCK.COM> <451D9018.9030509@cisco.com> <1A6ADEC7749C23CA618CA298@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


--On Friday, 29 September, 2006 18:14 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:

> On Friday, September 29, 2006 11:28:56 PM +0200 Eliot Lear
> <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>...
>> My point here is that the three step process is not used as
>> intended. Existing practice clearly demonstrates that the
>> vast majority of our work - far more than intended - never
>> reaches beyond PS.  This is reality.  Simply documenting that
>> fact in a new RFC2026bis would be to say, "Our standards are
>> broken and we know they're broken."

Actually, there is no evidence, in your graph or otherwise, that
"our standards are broken".  There is evidence that some
particular provisions of 2026 are being ignored, i.e., are not
consistent with current practice.   That is, IMO, rather
different.   If you want to reflect current practice, you remove
or correct those provisions  of 2026, you don't try to change
the definitions of the standards track itself, nor suggest that
the other stages are unused.

>>  That's not what
>> motivated me to write a draft.  What motivated me to write a
>> draft was that it's important that we say what we do and we
>> do what we say.

We are in agreement about that, assuming it can be done safely
and without either unintentional changes or changes, however
well intentioned, that go beyond current practice.

> Then write that.  We have a process which defines three stages
> and what has to happen to progress to each stage.  Where
> reality diverges from RFC2026 is that 2026 specifies
> particular timelines for reviewing documents and progressing
> them along the standards track, while what actually happens is
> that documents are progressed only when someone cares enough
> about them to make it happen.  As your graph shows, we
> published documents at all three levels last year.
> 
> We could eliminate one or both of the extra steps entirely, or
> become more agressive about actually making them happen, or do
> any of a wide variety of other things to make them happen.
> But none of those would be consistent with current practice,
> which is to progress documents beyond PS if and only if
> someone cares enough to make it happen.

+1

    john





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf