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

[James Kempf]

Dave,

Do you have any feeling for how long drafts remain as WG IDs today as opposed to
10 years ago?

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: <problem-statement@alvestrand.no>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Standards Classification and Reality Problem Statement (was Re: Not
a problem statement [ was Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking)


> 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
>
>