Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization
Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Tue, 09 November 2010 15:24 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0A33A69B0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:24:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cqCoB0CSoxyb for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F233A6959 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.87.158] ([124.193.12.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA9FOXId026626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:24:41 -0800
Message-ID: <4CD967AD.80605@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:24:29 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040604000403040802060207"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:24:42 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:24:18 -0000
Folks, A few of us have formulated an alternative proposal for streamlining the IETF standards process. We hope that it at least adds to the mix of discussion in the community. d/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:15:02 -0800 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Two-Stage IETF Standardization Author(s) : S. Dawkins, et al. Filename : draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2010-11-09 RFC 2026 specifies a three-stage Standards Track. As currently practiced, IETF standards track documents typically attain only the first stage. This proposal discusses the problems caused by the disparity between documented procedures and actual practice, and proposes a simplified, two-step standard track, which will streamline the IETF standardization process, with distinct benefits for each stage. Clarification of the criteria for handling documents re- submitted as Proposed Standard is also provided. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft.
- Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardi… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Russ Housley
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Russ Housley
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Russ Housley
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Martin Rex
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Martin Rex
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… ned+ietf
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Stand… Eric Burger