On Sep 2, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> wrote:
> Olaf, Scott, > > Apologies for a late reply on this (I was on vacation after the IETF). But > thank you for writing this draft. My general comment is that the draft makes > what in my mind is an accurate correction to our documents, aligning the > documents to the current reality. I'd be happy to take the document forward. > In fact, I think we need to make this change even if we made other, more long > term changes. > > There is at least one ongoing effort right now that has the potential to > reclassify a large set of Proposed Standard RFCs that form the basis of > widely used technology. These types of efforts can have a relatively big > effect on the standards status of the most commonly used RFCs. Do we want to > do more? Can we do more? seems like a quite bad idea (as Randy points out) take extra effort and get some interoperability data > > Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the > original mode of operation, i.e., making PS RFCs truly early and somewhat > untested specifications. I am personally opposed to that on the following > grounds. First, it would not change the fact that a large part of Internet > technology today runs on PS RFCs, and Olaf's problem with getting these RFCs > recognised would continue. Second, while I think we need to keep adjusting > the level of review performed by the IESG and in IETF Last Call (we sometimes > overdo it), I think broad review is actually useful. imo - not a chance in hell of the IESG going back to the original meaning of PS it is not in the IESG genetics, nor has it been for quite a while > > But enough about my opinions. What do the rest of you think? > > In terms of specific text, I also wrote a few observations, below. These are > purely personal comments. > > First, I think you assumed this but never made it explicit. While the new > characterisation recognises the often final role of PS RFCs, it does not take > away the possibility of publishing Internet Standard specifications. Can this > be clarified? > >> In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC202] the IESG >> has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs and thus >> RFC 2026 section 4.1.1 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed >> Standards. > > I'd prefer saying "the IETF review processes Proposed Standard RFCs have > evolved". And leave the details to Section 2. > >> 2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards > > Review > >> In response, >> the IESG strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically >> operating as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the >> IESG to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the >> standards document. > > That is part of it, but I think the situation is more complicated than that. > The world changed around us, and suddenly Internet was big business, global, > and we got more careful about impacts to it. The process has evolved, > including the number of steps in the ladder. Review practices in general have > changed quite a lot, we now have a fairly broad review of RFCs. > > Progression has also varied, mostly downwards. But as noted, it also seems > very much affected by specific initiatives. > > Here's what I'd say: > > Initially it was assumed that most IETF technical specifications > would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with > a relatively early Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard > then, finally, > to Internet Standard (see RFC 2026 section 6). Over time, for a > number of reasons, this progression became less common. At the same time, > the review for Proposed Standard RFCs was strengthened. > This strengthening was partially a response by the IESG for the above, > and in part a consequence of the growth in the importance of the > Internet and broader interest in reviewing new Internet technology. > > At the time of this writing, the IETF operates > as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the > to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the > standards document. The result is that IETF Proposed Standards > approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review. > Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards > should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from > other standards development organizations. In fact, the IETF review > is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to the cross-area > technical review performed in the IETF. wfm > > Jari >
