OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Randy Bush]

>>>> There is also a more fundamental issue with the IETF's engineering
>>>> practices.  Although our current standards track contains three
>>>> levels of maturity (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard and Full
>>>> Standard), we do not have sufficient differentiation regarding the
>>>> quality and completeness of documents required at each stage.  The
>>>> bar is set very high for publication at Proposed Standard, and very
>>>> few documents advance beyond this stage. [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have
>>>> IETF consensus that this is a problem?]
>>> 
>>> We're hearing proposed solutions to this problem, so it looks like
>>> there are folks who agree that it's a problem.
>>> 
>>> Are there folks who DON'T agree that this is a problem?
>> 
>> how does this 'problem' do damage to
>> 
>>    the ietf's goal is to produce high quality, relevant, and timely
>>    standards for internet technology.
> 
> well, what we currently have is for most purposes a single stage of
> review.  perhaps we'd produce higher quality and more relevant documents
> if we imposed some earlier review, and perhaps we'd get those documents
> done in a more timely fashion if the early reviews identified problems
> that are expensive (or time consuming) to fix if not discovered until
> later.

i do not disagree with you.  

but that is not at all what the problem statement above says to me
it seems to say that
  o the bar is too high
  o there is insufficient differentiation between ps, ds, and fs
with which i disagree

randy