OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[James Kempf]

> Firstly, yes it's a problem.
>
> Secondly, this is a case where I think a simple first step may
> help quite a bit: simply merge Draft Standard and Standard
> into a single class, called Standard,  but with the criteria
> now used for Draft Standard.
>
> Arguments: remove a process step that we basically never use,
> and make the step up from Proposed Standard worth the trouble.
>

I agree that merging Draft Standard and Standard would simplify the
process. The distinction between the new Standard and Proposed
Standard would be the need for two interoperable implementations and
give the opportunity to debug at Proposed.

> On James' point about Internet Drafts, maybe we could use a
> little clarification in the WG procedures, but the main point
> is to require a WG consensus before declaring a draft to be
> a WG draft. If that hasn't been happening, it's more of a WG
> Chair training issue than anything else.
>

The point I was trying to make, which perhaps wasn't at all clear, was
that this can be viewed in the same category as "earlier feedback is
more helpful than later." It is perfectly possible for a draft to have
WG concensus to become a WG draft and for it to contain fundamental
architectural flaws that don't get worked out in subsequent
discussion, until the draft ends up at the IESG and is rejected. By
recognizing the step from individual contribution to WG draft more
formally, and requiring some formal level of review rather than just
that some group of people in the WG think it is OK and say so might
help to catch those cases. The level of review should not be
burdensome or as extensive as required for the draft to go to RFC, and
could be entirely at the discretion of the shepherding AD and WG
chair. Right now, the step from individual contribution to WG draft is
left to the WG chair's discretion.

            jak