Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> Fri, 28 January 2011 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.com>
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 616BD3A68B8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:27:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 2wxZolHq8dLn for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:27:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpde01.sap-ag.de (smtpde01.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E48E3A6B6F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde01.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id p0S2Uiwp007240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:30:44 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-Id: <201101280230.p0S2UhrM006665@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
To: sob@harvard.edu
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:30:43 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20110127032924.2FE4480CCE8@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> from "Scott O. Bradner" at Jan 26, 11 10:29:24 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SAP: out
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:27:56 -0000

Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> 
> 1/ I still do not think this (modified) proposal will have any real
>    impact on the number of "Proposed Standard" documents that move
>    to a (in this proposal, "the") higher level since I do not see
>    how this makes any significant changes to the underlying reasons
>    that documents have not progressed in the past - i.e., I see no
>    reason to think that this proposal would change the world much
>    (would not help, would not hurt)

The reason why so many documents are at proposed is that they're
often collections of bloat (limited-use features with an aggresive
requirements level) from various interest groups that is
not strictly necessary for a protocol to be useful, and sometimes
used only by a minority.

Normally, for progression from Proposed to Draft,

   - some of the MUSTs would have to be changed to SHOULDs,
   - some of the SHOULDs would have to be changed to MAYs,
   - some parts might better be moved to seperate, optional
     extensions documents

But the particular interest groups would rather have the document
remain at Proposed than seeing any of the requirements level of
those particular features they're interested in, to come out lowered,
or see features removed from the base protocol and into a
seperate extensions document.


This is one of the reasons why there is a constant stream of new
authentication protocols.


-Martin