Subject: Re: [newtrk] question one for newtrk

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:03:23 -0400

Just one woman's opinion...

At 9:26 AM -0400 5/27/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
>So the question I'd like the WG to first discuss is:
>
>   "Should the first stage of IESG review of a standards track document be
>   done under the assumption that few documents will be revised after first
>   publication (and this must be "correct" the first time) or should it
>   assume that we will have a functioning multi-stage IETF standards track?

I would like to see us move to a functional multi-stage IETF standards
track.

IMO, a important step in making that happen is to include a first-stage
standard that has a much lower bar for entry than the current level of
completeness and perfection that is required for PS.  A PS level that
matches the wording in RFC 2026 would, IMO, be more appropriate
than the higher bar that we use for PS approval today.

Margaret

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html