Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[Harrington, David]

Hi,

I personally think that relaxing quality on the protocol specifications =
is a bad idea. The documents at PS are used to verify that the specs are =
adequately unambiguous and accurate that multiple independent =
implementors will be able to create interoperable implementations. I =
would think this would be the worst time to relax the review process.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@jck.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:44 PM
> To: Scott Bradner; mrw@windriver.com
> Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking
>=20
>=20
> --On Wednesday, 11 December, 2002 21:17 -0500 Scott Bradner
> <sob@harvard.edu> wrote:
>=20
> > I'm generally in favor of this
> > but when I've made teh argument in the iesg that 'this is only
> > a PS' I do not generally get much support, maybe because of
> > the fact that so few things move up teh process -
> >=20
> > I do like teh multi-stage process & think it has served the
> > IETF well over teh years buit may need a kick to make it work
>=20
> As I said in the note to which you responded,
>=20
> 		Of course, the key to doing this would be deep
> 		commitment to it among IESG members and, to some extent,
> 		by the RFC Editor: any significant nit-picking or
> 		insistence on document polishing would kill the whole
> 		idea.
>=20
> I believe that virtually all of the proposals that have been
> discussed on this list will require the enthusiastic support of
> most or all of the IESG (post-kick if needed).  Without such
> support, I can think of ways that any of them could be subverted
> or sabotaged.
>=20
> An extended version of an observation from a private exchange
> might also be relevant here: One of my concerns about the PACT
> proposals to increase the role of WGs and areas relative to the
> rest of the IESG and cross-review is that it could cost us some
> of that review, which I've considered critical.  But, if a PS
> document is really treated as a formal proposal, rather than as
> a nearly-finished protocol and document, one might even think of
> a PS document as being a WG or Area standard/document.  There
> might be all of the usual Last Call opportunities for input, and
> provision for escalation if the Last Call exposed really serious
> problems.  But we could then try to treat Draft Standard as the
> first level at which there was formal _IETF_ review and
> approval. =20
>=20
> Think, e.g., about a disclaimer on a PS document that said "this
> document was developed in, and approved by, the Foo IETF Working
> Group but no determination has been made as to whether there is
> IETF consensus on quality or completeness".   That might be
> enough to frighten people into waiting for Draft before
> large-scale deployment, as long as the Draft docs actually
> appeared in reasonable time :-)
>=20
>    john
>=20
>=20
>=20