Two document stages: Proposed and Full

Brian E Carpenter brian at
Wed Jun 11 12:07:55 CEST 2003

Problem related comment:

We have ample evidence that WGs don't consistently produce
documents that meet even today's criteria for PS. I am strongly
against giving WGs the ability to approve PSs without enforced peer 
review that is specifically independent of the WG and specifically
consider IETF-wide and Internet-wide issues. This proposal would
only make the problem worse than today, by allowing WGs to ignore
peer review. 


"Charles E. Perkins" wrote:
> Hello folks,
> I think this has been suggested before.  I'd like to
> suggest it again.  Maybe we can get some mileage out of
> having two stages of standardization:
> Proposed Standard: requires working group approval.  IESG comments
>         taken into account, but full IESG approval not needed before
>         publication.  Interoperability testing completed, no known
>         flaws that present danger to the Internet.  Component protocols
>         are O.K., as long as applicability (usefulness) is documented.
> Full Standard: Full IESG approval required, according to current
>         procedures.  Component protocols published as part of
>         document suites, or separately, according to IESG discretion.
> Since the IESG still controls charters and chair selection, one may
> presume that generally sensible people will be involved.  In this
> model, for instance, a working group might publish a component
> protocol, and another working group with more relevant expertise
> might publish another associated component protocol that could fit
> together into a larger system.
> Maybe this is too much "solution space" -- if so, I'll try to
> bring it up whenever I can find that forum.  It's gotta be
> around here somewhere.
> Regards,
> Charlie P.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list