The need for smaller protocol specifications

[Keith Moore]

> Erik said:
> > I suspect that as a result of this, protocol specifications 
> > become longer and more complex and, even if the solutions to 
> > deal with individual pieces are separable, in order to get 
> > the protocol approved it might be necessary to deal with 
> > many, if not all, of the issues.
> 
> I suspect that this intersects viciously with the "every possible
> issue must be solved before publishing a proposed standard, because
> nothing ever makes it to draft" behavior.

I suspect it intersects even more viciously with the "we finalize
the design of the the protocol before we understand the full spectrum of
requirements" behavior.

Or to put it another way, if the WG is finding out only after Last Call
that it's failed to establish the requirements for its work to be
complete and to get sign-off on those requirements from IESG, it's going
to be very difficult to fix that WG's output to everyone's satisfaction.

the surest way to get burned is to deliver a product to a
customer without first having agreed on the deliverables...

> Seriously, I think the bars are set at the wrong levels -- the first
> rung is just too high, the second is unachievable, and the third is
> unimaginable.

I think we need some lower rungs to step on before we get to Last Call.
I also think we might need to raise the rung we're currently calling 
Proposed Standard.