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

[Kurt D. Zeilenga]

At 10:21 AM 12/16/2002, James Kempf wrote:

>> 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?

Well, I think the IESG hasn't done this because we, the IETF, have
not made it a priority.

That is, the problem is not the IESG nor the BCPs, it's us.

Kurt