IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (1)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 29 May 2017 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C75129B09; Mon, 29 May 2017 11:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mb8hqhW4zQUO; Mon, 29 May 2017 11:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFACA127873; Mon, 29 May 2017 11:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C578C200A1; Mon, 29 May 2017 14:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D3E636BB; Mon, 29 May 2017 14:51:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-grasp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <afe91226-74fe-eae2-99ff-4091d15d2b47@gmail.com>
References: <149550272234.507.6666100470577050600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <afe91226-74fe-eae2-99ff-4091d15d2b47@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:51:48 -0400
Message-ID: <27508.1496083908@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/AYXoZIv0YdXZdZtt5cobhHJbTts>
Subject: Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (1)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:51:51 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you
    >> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required?

    > Personal opinion: I see potential for harm. I could imagine that if
    > GRASP is a success, then with experience we might be more relaxed about
    > it, but for now I tend to be conservative about it. Of course, the WG
    > may disagree...

Is it easier to raise the bar or lower it?  I think lowering is easier.
I could live with "Spec Required" or even FCFS for M_* values >65536, btw.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email