PS to IS question from plenary

[IETF Chair <[e-mail]>]

Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many PS->IS transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published in October 2011. That RFC changed the three-step standards process to two steps. There was also a question of how this compared to previous times before that RFC got approved.

Looking at the timeframe from October 2011 to today (22 months), there have been four such protocol actions. These results are given by searching the IETF Announce mail archive:

0.1000 	12159 	07/16/2013 	Protocol Action: 'Specification of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information' to Internet Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	12036 	06/04/2013 	Protocol Action: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures to Internet Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	11609 	01/25/2013 	Protocol Action: 'Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-10.txt) 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	11510 	01/03/2013 	Protocol Action: 'Automated Updates of DNSSEC Trust Anchors' to Internet Standard (RFC 5011) 	[e-mail] 

Prior to the publication of RFC 6410, in the preceding 22 months there were these 20 actions raising standards to either Draft Standard or Full Standard:

0.1000 	9572 	07/12/2011 	Protocol Action: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Draft Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-15.txt) 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	9427 	06/06/2011 	Protocol Action: 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	9402 	05/31/2011 	Protocol Action: 'Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	9401 	05/31/2011 	Protocol Action: 'Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	9400 	05/31/2011 	Protocol Action: 'Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	7410 	01/25/2010 	Protocol Action: 'ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	6858 	08/17/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard' to BCP 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	6819 	07/29/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	6816 	07/29/2009 	Protocol Action: 'TCP Congestion Control' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	6256 	03/05/2009 	Protocol Action: 'RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	6069 	01/14/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4' to Draft Standard 	[e-mail] 

0.1000 	10108 	12/05/2011 	Protocol Action: 'The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 
0.1000 	9781 	09/06/2011 	Protocol Action: 'Message Submission for Mail' to Full Standard (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt) 	[e-mail] 
2.3656 	8034 	06/21/2010 	Protocol Action: 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 
2.4437 	7668 	03/15/2010 	Protocol Action: 'SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 
2.2366 	6876 	08/19/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 
2.4694 	6784 	07/20/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 
2.2972 	6783 	07/20/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 
2.1632 	6782 	07/20/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 
2.5992 	6781 	07/20/2009 	Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)' to Full Standard 	[e-mail] 

I should insert here the Standard disclaimer about possibly faulty search methodology or records, misunderstanding the question, or the hasty interpretation of results. In particular, the above search was not easy on ARO, involved manual steps, and I might have easily missed something. And I wish I had been able to do a database query instead. Feel free to repeat & verify my results...

Jari