Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

[[e-mail]]

> Russ,

> > Dave:
> >
> > This is a significant improvement from my perspective.  We need a
> > mechanism to implement it.  The mechanism does not need to be heavy
> > weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
> > allowing the community to support or challenge them.
> >
> > Russ

> Thank you for the hallway conversation on this.

> When I counted last week, only 80 implementation reports have been filed
> with the IESG in the history of "ever", so this doesn't seem like the right
> hurdle for advancement.

I assume that figure was arrived at by looking at:

  http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation-report.html

If so, it's apropos of nothing, since the list is incomplete. Just as one
example, MIME interop info isn't on it, and that information definitely was
generated.

> I think your suggestion to make assertions at Last Call time and asking for
> supporting/challenging statements sounds very reasonable. The IESG can do
> the right thing based on Last Call comments.

For the record, I am entirely in favor of Russ' proposal but entirely opposed
to this new proposal, because it eliminates the parts of the process that are
working (proposed -> draft criteria) and retains the ones that aren't (draft ->
full).

In fact given a choice between this new proposal and the current process, I
prefer the current process.

				Ned