John C Klensin john-ietf at
Wed Feb 19 09:19:08 CET 2003

--On Wednesday, 19 February, 2003 20:46 +0700 Robert Elz 
<kre at munnari.OZ.AU> wrote:

> This is also (IMO) contributing to the (IMO unreasonable)
> demand for perfection in everything published as a PS, because
> most people realise that for most documents, that's as far as
> they'll ever actually go. Not because they wouldn't qualify
> for more, but because no-one has enough interest in doing the
> extra work.

Let me suggest a different, but equally problematic, 
interpretation of the same data.  If the IESG (and RFC Editor ?) 
insists on perfection at PS, doing so sufficiently exhausts 
people and process that there is no energy for doing the work to 
advance the document further.  In this model, a lighter-weight 
approach to PS might produce somewhat weaker documents, probably 
much more rapidly.  Such documents, and the reduced level of 
burnout from producing them, might then provide both more 
incentive and more energy for going to Draft.

Same issue, same symptoms, different cause and effect 
hypothesis.  It is probably worthwhile to document both 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list