Re: what is the problem? (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

2010-10-27 Thread Eric Burger
+1 On Oct 26, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Fred Baker wrote: On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Action We should adopt Russ's proposal: Axe the DRAFT status and automatically promote all DRAFT status documents to STANDARD status. This can be done formally by changing

what is the problem? (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

2010-10-26 Thread Scott O. Bradner
some more thoughts first figure out what problem you are trying to solve is the problem: 1/ that the 3 step standards track described in RFC 226 and its predecessors does not describe what happens most of the time? 2/ (as Eric says) that it takes too long to get to the first stage 3/ too much

Re: what is the problem? (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

2010-10-26 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker
I think that many of us already know the problem(s) we want to solve here and have done since before NEWTRK was chartered. The core problem in my view is that the current IETF process is not and cannot be understood by non-participants because the theory is not and has never been followed. As a

Re: what is the problem? (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

2010-10-26 Thread Fred Baker
On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Action We should adopt Russ's proposal: Axe the DRAFT status and automatically promote all DRAFT status documents to STANDARD status. This can be done formally by changing the process or the IESG can just agree to a convention