[ follow-ups to IETF discussion list please]
Of the three possible ways forward suggested by this draft, I think that
the only one that's likely to get done is this one:
1. Agree that, apart from day to day efforts to improve efficiency,
the problems with the existing standards track are not serious
enough to justify the effort needed to make substantial changes.
Conclude that [RFC3774] exaggerated the problem and we only need
to make a relatively minor set of clarifications to BCP 9
[RFC2026].
I say this because the newtrk WG has already tried to do the other two
things that were suggested (focusing on document relationships and
reworking the standards track) and failed. The deafening silence on
the WG mailing list suggests to me that the energy has run out of this
WG and it should be closed.
I believe that two modifications (not clarifications) to RFC 2026
would suffice:
- drop the expectation that a document will necessarily ever advance,
and drop the requirement for periodic reviews of documents at PS or DS;
- drop the "no normative downrefs" rule.
This last should be done with an absolute minimum of fuss and with no
imposition of requirements to put special notes in the documents
about downrefs. If we can't agree on that, then I would settle for
just the first modification. That would at least get our documented
procedures more in line with the reality that we practice.
Mike Heard
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
