RE: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

["Tony Hain" <[e-mail]>]

Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> ...
> the only way that could happen is if the IESG were to change their ways
> a lot
> and permit less complete documents to be published as PS

Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already changing
their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a personal
I-D to become a WG draft. 

I don't think that is the direction of change you were looking for though.
;)


FWIW: I support the goal of removing the useless state of DS, but I see
Russ's draft as more of a starting point for discussion than a reasonable
destination. As many others have said, the most pressing problem is getting
past the IESG in the first place, and given there is evidence they are going
to be attacking I-Ds, it is clear that this document does nothing to help
with the core problem. The best it does is to reduce some of the external
confusion, but it doesn't even really do that well since most outside
parties equate "RFC" with "Full Standard". 

What we really need to do is make the process simple:

Personal I-D gathers interest
WG chair gauges interest - establishes WG doc (AD is explicitly overruled if
necessary)
WG I-D presented to Area - Area AD enables publication as PS RFC
Full IESG reviews requests to move from PS to IS, and doesn't get in the way
before that.

This does not preclude cross-area review and comments at any point along the
way, and in fact an AD would be wise to seek out comment from other areas.
What it does is restore the state when the IETF was productive and relevant.
It is effectively a 4 stage doc process rather than the 5 stage one today.
Getting the major hurdle of IESG review out of the way of the step to
generate initial archival documents is the big win here, both in terms of
workload on the IESG and the ability of the IETF to be public about its
evolutionary steps. 

Tony