Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

On 2011-07-31 04:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
...
> I *really* want an answer to the issue that Scott raises. Eric and Brian
> each refer to a "baby step". A baby step toward what exactly?
> 
> If the answer is simply, "to align documentation with current
> procedure", that's fine, but then I want to know: a) Why is it useful
> and positive to line up documentation with current procedure? That is,
> what are we gaining by publishing this? 

I believe that the present situation is confusing both to IETF newcomers
(who may falsely believe that the IETF actually follows the 3 stage process)
and, worse, confusing to users of IETF standards (who may falsely believe
that a document isn't useful until it's advanced). We, and those users,
gain by reducing the confusion. (Note: I did not write "eliminating the
confusion".)

> and b) This document is
> identical to neither 2026 *nor* current procedure, so how is it
> accomplishing the goal of aligning with current procedure anyway?

It defines a practice which is *very* close to present practice,
apart from a minor name change. I think that's the best we can do,
but that's why it's a baby step, not a no-op.

> 
> If the answer is, "Yes, this document will cause a change in the percent
> of Proposed Standards that move up", then I want to know "How?", because
> like Scott, I haven't heard the answer stated in this dicussion.

It might cause a change, simply because the effort of making the single
move PS->IS will get you to the end state, whereas previously you had
to make two efforts, PS->DS->STD. But only time will tell if this changes
our collective behaviour.

   Brian