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

[Dave Crocker]

James,

Monday, December 16, 2002, 8:35:25 AM, you wrote:
James> What I was trying to point out is that WG ID has taken on much the same function
James> as PS when it was originally proposed. Once a document becomes a WG ID,

This is quite simply not true.  10 years ago, there were significant debates
in the IESG about the relative import of PS and DS, for example.  A common
view was the PS was THE major hurdle, much as we see it today.

An I-D has *never* been a major hurdle.


James>  there is
James> little or no change in the basic design,

This is frequently not true.  I-Ds are often discarded.  I-Ds are often
subject to massive change.

Please do not confuse a statistic with an absolute.  The fact that I-Ds
frequently retain their original structure and most of their detail, and
that I-Ds frequently go to PS, should not be confused with such facts being
automatically true for all I-Ds.   They aren't.


James> There is no requirement for interoperability when something becomes PS.

This is sometimes not true. From The Internet Standards Process
<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt>:


   4.1.1  Proposed Standard
   ...
   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation.

   The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
   prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
   materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
   behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
   Internet.


d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850