I think this draft may do a little good, but mostly based on the attention it brings to the issue.
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit* the requirement of multiple interoperable implementations, a requirement sometimes applied in an inconsistent and haphazard manner to candidates for Proposed Standard. On STD numbers, they were an interesting experiment but I believe, as currently implemented, they have been proven to add only confusion and bureaucracy. It would be quite easy and straightforward to have a different document sequence for Standards. For success in this, it would be essential to assure that they do *not* have RFC numbers. History shows that, regardless of other labels, if a document has an RFC #, most references to it will be via that number. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Scott O. Bradner <s...@harvard.edu> wrote: > As I have stated before, I do not think that this proposal will achieve > anything useful since it will not change anything related to the > underlying causes of few Proposed Standards advancing on the standards > track. I see it as window dressing and, thus, a diversion from the > technical work the IETF should focus on. > > If it were up to me, I would not approve this ID for publication as a > RFC (of any type) > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
