IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> Wed, 27 October 2010 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF723A695E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.478
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.458, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zXBhOMsTDdK7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tndh.net (static-66-15-163-216.bdsl.verizon.net [66.15.163.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD893A680C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuthUser: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Received: from ahainW7 ([192.168.123.15]:55981) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.27 ESMTP Server] id <S18C1A29> for <ietf@ietf.org> from <alh-ietf@tndh.net>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:24:51 -0700
From: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: 'Lars Eggert' <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <20101026115954.13D815B23A6@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <03b201cb754f$f1b1f930$d515eb90$@net> <61FAB3C7-940A-4A2B-B167-924304B7A602@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <61FAB3C7-940A-4A2B-B167-924304B7A602@nokia.com>
Subject: RE: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:24:31 -0700
Message-ID: <05fc01cb75f3$71c68750$555395f0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Act1p48KzTG7LF4QSRiBHTpw6RxheQASrZqQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: "'Scott O. Bradner'" <sob@harvard.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:22:50 -0000

Lars,

As I understand it, the characterization was correct. The level of the bar
you appear to be setting is appropriate for progressing an ID out of the WG,
but completely insane for evaluating a personal submission for becoming a WG
item. In the abstract, requiring multiple interoperable implementations of
personal drafts essentially codifies that the IETF process is irrelevant...

At the end of the day the market only cares about interoperable
implementations. The only thing they look to the IETF for is a reference for
getting the vendors to play together in the sandbox. If the IETF process
starts requiring the vendors to play nice in the sandbox BEFORE being
blessed by the wisdom of those who are here to protect us, what is the
point? Once the vendors play together the market could care less if the
protectors of the world have rubber stamped their creation.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:21 AM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: 'Scott O. Bradner'; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
> 
> On 2010-10-26, at 23:54, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already
> changing
> > their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a
> personal
> > I-D to become a WG draft.
> 
> James characterization is inaccurate. See my other email.
> 
> Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email