FWIW, I still think the approach in the draft is a good idea
given that...
(1) We have not been able to get consensus eliminating a
multistep standard process. For reasons explained elsewhere, I
personally consider that eliminating that process would be a bad
idea, but that is another discussion. The present reality is
that we don't have that consensus and that blocking incremental
improvements within it is a strange form of "see if we can make
things worse so as to build momentum for a more basic change".
I don't believe in that style of doing things.
(2) We have had repeated claims that the downref issue is a
major cause of perceived IETF slowness in getting documents out
and, especially, of getting documents to advanced maturity
level. I think that validating (or invalidating) those claims
would be helpful as a goal in itself. If it results in a
significant number of documents being advanced, that would be a
good thing. If it results in few or no documents being
advanced, then we know that particular argument is not a
significant part of the picture, and that would, itself, be
useful.
