On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> > I strongly object to this text in Section 5: > > 2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as > a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard > document as Proposed Standard. > > > Section 1 already provides a method for any interested party to request > that a document advance from Draft to Internet Standard. Creating another, > less stringent method to be employed only after 2 years is, at best, odd. > At worst, it seems like a signal that the IESG desires to do a mass update > in the future, but does not wish to deal with the political fall-out of > saying so at the same time as the publication of the document. I draw this > inference from the fact that the current section 2 does not require any > IETF-wide Last Call. If this is meant to say that after 2 years, any IESG > member may put forward a Last Call for any document to be advanced, then I > believe that the IESG member is simply taking the role of community member > set forward in Section 1, and no further section is needed. IESG review, > Last Call, and approval would still go forward according section 1. > > In case this is not clear, I do not think a mass update is valuable or > desirable. Many of the critical RFCs are pre-Track and no one much seems to > mind. At most, I think saying that Internet Standards are permitted to > reference Draft Standards is needed. (This can be inferred now from the > fact that Proposed Standards may be referenced, but it wouldn't hurt to > update that in section 4). > > I also strongly believe that this proposal will not have the intended > effect without concerted efforts by the IESG and WG Chairs to adhere to the > new "Proposed Standard" vision. As a new WG Chair, I plan to push that > vision for my own group, and I hope that the IESG will support that effort > as this document intends. > > > I am lost here. Based on a previous version of the Internet-Draft, the > question was raised by Brian Carpenter about documents that were stuck in a > state Draft Standard after that label is abandoned. There was discussion on > the list, and some people felt that it was neither confusing nor harmful, > while others thought that it would lead to confusion. This proposal is > intended to let the IESG decide, If it is not considered a problem, they > can do nothing. If it is considered a problem, they can move the Draft > Standard DOWN to Proposed Standard. Your use of "be advanced" makes me > wonder if you got a different interpretation. > > I did misread this, sorry. I still don't think it is a good idea, but I will drop from "strongly object" to "object". I think we should acknowledge that we had an era in which Draft Standards existed and leave it at that. Updates from Draft to Internet Standard make some sense, because in at least some cases they would have been updated to Standard. But the only way under our current process to force something from Draft to Proposed is to re-cycle it, and I don't think that should change. I think a mass update (in any direction) would be a mistake. At the core of that belief is a conviction that any change that didn't result from a re-cycle should require a Last Call to the community. Up, Down, Sidewise--these should be community decisions that the IESG approves, not IESG decisions without community input. Thanks for your quick reply, Ted Russ > >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
