Standards Classification and Reality Problem Statement (was Re: Not a problem statement [ was Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking)

[James Kempf]

Fred,


> At 02:45 PM 12/13/2002 -0800, James Kempf wrote:
> >The issue here isn't the perception
> >that Informational documents are Standards, but rather that a WG ID will
> >inevitably become the standard, without substantial modification in any
> >form of
> >its basic design and contents.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Is this a matter of frustration/concern? I thought that the reason we met
> in working groups was to develop consensus documents that would support
> interoperable implementation, which is to say "to become the standard".
>
> If that's not the expectation, what in the world are we spending all this
> time and aggravation trying to do?
>
>

Let's back up a little.

The original issue was the relevance of the current PS/DS/S classifications.
Someone noted that there are very few DSs and even fewer Ss. Why? And what
relevance do these classifications have for the needs of IETF's customers today,
as opposed to when they were originally proposed?

What I was trying to point out is that WG ID has taken on much the same function
as PS when it was originally proposed. Once a document becomes a WG ID, there is
little or no change in the basic design, it is essentially impossible to get it
removed, and for all intents and purposes it has become a de facto standard,
regardless of what the template text says and regardless of what the IETF rules
are. The advantage of using the WG ID in this form over PS is that the text can
be changed as problems are found with implementation, whereas trying to change
the text in a PS is impossible without reving the RFC number, which is today a
long and heavyweight process. Being able to change the WG ID facilitates
incremental design, and ultimately interoperability.

There is no requirement for interoperability when something becomes PS. And very
few standards become DS. So we are left without any formal requirement for
interoperability when making something a standard by the criteria that most IETF
customers believe that it should be.

The overall problem is that the world has changed since the original
classifications were done, and, at the risk of once again getting told that this
is a problem statement list and not for solutions,  I think we ought to
recognize the role that a WG ID has as, in effect, a de facto standard, and
require interoperable implementations for PS. Whether we keep DS and S is
unimportant, but we need to recognize reality.

            jak