Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:38:14AM -0400, Ross Callon wrote:
>> 
>> I haven't heard anyone currently on the IESG say that the two step process would require "higher more rigorous document reviews". 
>> 
> 
> That particular refusal to recognize part of reality is the thing that
> annoys me about this draft and about the discussions leading to its
> modification of the official process.
> 
> The causal claim asserted early in the I-D's life was that, since many
> RFCs effectively live forever today at step 1 of the standards track,
> IESG members feel a responsibility to make sure that an I-D is "right"
> before publication as PS even though that requirement is much higher
> than the RFC 2026 process requires.
> 
> As a result, proponents argued, the process would be made less onerous
> by moving to a two-step process in which initial publication at step 1
> is the same as RFC 2026's step 1, except that it is even easier to go
> from that and get the honorific "Internet Standard" than it is today.
> 
> I find it impossible to believe that this will not result in even more
> hard-line positions on the part of some IESG members when something
> with which they disagree is a candidate for PS.  I see no way in which
> the draft solves this problem, which remains one of its implicit
> goals.  I said before, I don't care if it is published, because I
> think it will have little effect.  But I think we'd better be prepared
> for some IESG members to insist on the same high bar for PS that we
> have under RFC 2026, regardless of what the RFC says.

+1

Best statement of the problem with this document that I've seen so far.

Keith