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

[James Kempf]

> Part of the classification problem is that the IESG has not
> done expired-in-grade standard track RFCs reviews.  (Or, minimally,
> they have communicated their decisions as required by RFC 2026.)
>
>    When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
>    Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
>    twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
>    until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
>    the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
>    usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
>    shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
>    at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
>    at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status.  This
>    decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
>    IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
>    opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
>    legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
>    administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
>
> I suspect that if such reviews were actually done, not only would
> many documents be moved to Historic, but we'd see viable
> standardization efforts spring up to move the suitable documents
> forward.
>
>

Hmm, so maybe the issue isn't so much that we don't have the process to deal
with the lack of forward progress on PSs, but rather that the IESG's workload is
such that this responsibility falls off the bottom of their priority list?

            jak