Subject: Re: [newtrk] 3rd meta question

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> <ravemode>
> Why are we so reluctant to change the documented standards process to
> match what we are actually doing? The three-stage standards process
> has failed to become the common code path in the IETF. No one
> challenges this, but you can't tell it from our documented process.
> Periodic review of proposed-standard and draft-standard specifications
> has NEVER happened in the IETF - but it has been mandated by our
> documented standards process since RFC 1310 (March 1992).
> Our documented process misled every new IETF participant who started
> after IETF 23. The smart ones learned what to ignore and moved on.
> And yet we are amazed that people don't trust the standards process
> leadership ("black helicopter with IESG markings sighted, film at
> 11").
> 
> Why don't we tell participants what we actually DO?
> </ravemode>

In other words, adopt as official the one-step standardization
process that we actually practice.  Sounds good to me!

//cmh

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Robert Snively" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:19:58 -0700

Excellent idea.

Sounds to me like all the steps for a single-layer standards
track are already in place, including especially the 
overall review for consistency with Internet architecture.

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 6:36 PM
> To: NEWTRK
> Subject: Re: [newtrk] 3rd meta question
> 
> 

.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:41:59 -0400

I tend to agree strongly with Spencer.  We *can* do something ISD-like
without revising RFC 2026.  however it sounds like a lot of things
tied up in ISDs like making STD more useful or getting rid of it
*should be combined with* process revisions.

I also agree that regardless of whether we do ISD work independent of
RFC 2026 work, we need to do the RFC 2026 work.  I don't think RFC
2026 accurately reflects the consensus-based nature of the IETF.  I've
found RFC 2026 to be fairly vague and challenging to interpret when I
had need to interpret it.  I have recently had reason to read section
6.5 of RFC 2026 and found some of the differences between technical
and process appeals particularly confusing and poorly motivated.

I'd rather not see RFC 2026 get split in to that many more documents.
Perhaps a few modules could be split out but there should be one core
document about how the standards process works at the root of the tree
and that document should be revised.

.