IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 01 June 2017 03:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 97AC81294D4; Wed, 31 May 2017 20:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ikX5Noc9mPTk; Wed, 31 May 2017 20:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x241.google.com (mail-pf0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F5561294CF; Wed, 31 May 2017 20:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id n23so6049301pfb.3; Wed, 31 May 2017 20:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HmSwiUAo4hTvdHUP75gdgjDX/3hQZPbo4yksbro++9Y=; b=UH2PapQAIA+cxSeqBkLrMwxIi6zGPDhlZ8427eYMTHjE/HpPssgr5oQzxgcmTVl5U5 RDV9BRD7W8oGPpw4Vmv0XLnKYDz0Y+O9cBEpkUjHrFWes+OuY6dOByrfvx6v6Di1dD7g aIv7azcThUCwJaL1XpxpQkwJidrn00UNYh744ejsUptggVWXTqIn/4G8KsFZf4tMsm85 y/KWUEGFkLKzESLh9Ba9W22YTSACmeJyXk6FEqHB63Ds2dQgbcN32M3nOKye8MxemWWW rzMikaOZghwlrwOsOLmnO0ooWR6aky4VmcHca0Kg40L6AxA3vD33kML6OIMhOXQLZell 7hGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HmSwiUAo4hTvdHUP75gdgjDX/3hQZPbo4yksbro++9Y=; b=hE9D2ym+Uzx7vYkScj3t/NDqjVSdiPqk0SbZaBbhP+et3zY+JFtEc/y0cPIxeVRfM8 8Yh82uxU9XEDyhU3lxeG8Hlj47KKX8YlotxO4QN/Vwa3ixtEVDUY5Mnpzxir2bKNdiP/ FgL29lSjCh57J2mbdp914VZCx4GRmR6OqFrcFbvZsKBbn3jXTv1LJfA3bfkeRBkTorNk LaMSv3Us6IXjMtXuz+UWL8ImfOd6Ke0O7F9+tt3A+uA+0NSk/o45MYo4A+e8AI384lGG KForQa1fmlya0WNuJr4lhz2He/Hb0uN+XnxS8Pk1yjs4PxQpwE9UY36Qzh2rjjOT2Vpq kxmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCpDteksh5pNakrg3TPDf48kxlVHtUFj2HEBzn5WhIaVFzwTu4V 5Dj4B+GAz/QStwq4
X-Received: by 10.84.171.193 with SMTP id l59mr91851224plb.139.1496289135957; Wed, 31 May 2017 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:5618:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:5618:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t13sm34474012pfa.126.2017.05.31.20.52.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 31 May 2017 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-grasp@ietf.org
References: <149550272234.507.6666100470577050600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <afe91226-74fe-eae2-99ff-4091d15d2b47@gmail.com> <27508.1496083908@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <d70e283a-37d7-ada3-5c52-878aee841473@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:52:17 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <27508.1496083908@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/usSQ3k1Uqy2d3jiQMRY4p8usLhA>
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: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 03:52:18 -0000

On 30/05/2017 06:51, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> 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.

Probably, but it's definitely impossible to squeeze toothpaste back in the tube,
so IMHO lowering the bar later is the safer approach.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email