On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:38:14AM -0400, Ross Callon wrote: >> >> I haven't heard anyone currently on the IESG say that the two step process >> would require "higher more rigorous document reviews". >> > > That particular refusal to recognize part of reality is the thing that > annoys me about this draft and about the discussions leading to its > modification of the official process. > > The causal claim asserted early in the I-D's life was that, since many > RFCs effectively live forever today at step 1 of the standards track, > IESG members feel a responsibility to make sure that an I-D is "right" > before publication as PS even though that requirement is much higher > than the RFC 2026 process requires. > > As a result, proponents argued, the process would be made less onerous > by moving to a two-step process in which initial publication at step 1 > is the same as RFC 2026's step 1, except that it is even easier to go > from that and get the honorific "Internet Standard" than it is today. > > I find it impossible to believe that this will not result in even more > hard-line positions on the part of some IESG members when something > with which they disagree is a candidate for PS. I see no way in which > the draft solves this problem, which remains one of its implicit > goals. I said before, I don't care if it is published, because I > think it will have little effect. But I think we'd better be prepared > for some IESG members to insist on the same high bar for PS that we > have under RFC 2026, regardless of what the RFC says.
+1 Best statement of the problem with this document that I've seen so far. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
