Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:07:43PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 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
--