OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Spencer Dawkins]

Err, but you'll notice that we are discussing a "working group
draft" that was initially published as a working group draft
(not accepted as a working group draft from an existing
submission). The draft is a process draft, not a protocol draft, 
but we sure do this a lot if we're doing it wrong!

Having said this - I like Brian's suggestion. I think we would 
STILL have a "three-stage standards track", but it would be:

- working group draft for chartered specification,
- Proposed Standard,
- Standard

and it accomplishes what we had discussed about being able to
publish "Proposed Standard"/"first rung" specifications in a more
timely fashion without devaluing the RFC logo, and giving us 
a clearer conscience when we CHANGE something because
of implementation/deployment experience.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>    Brian