IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the problem bis)

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Fri, 29 October 2010 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.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 B3F503A691A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 FGGiG0OmGOzJ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8793A6857 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1PBvCH-000LOS-T3; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:05:10 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:05:09 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the problem bis)
Message-ID: <0F8149DFD16AED781A53FF21@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <5D688BC2-4B8D-4C0F-8686-25AF4108C3B3@acmepacket.com>
References: <20101026160857.3A7495B3FA4@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <AANLkTikcetirTVJ2KSSC_XG5Vbhq-Z5HGitJ20_xaFhH@mail.gmail.com> <20101027114726.GY45134@shinkuro.com> <006FEB08D9C6444AB014105C9AEB133F012E6FCD4407@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <E3087EE1-1EE3-4B93-83B7-5CC1EDD5107C@network-heretics.com> <5D688BC2-4B8D-4C0F-8686-25AF4108C3B3@acmepacket.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:30:03 -0700
Cc: 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: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:03:23 -0000

--On Friday, October 29, 2010 12:20 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan
<HKaplan@acmepacket.com> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> That's why I think we need a different set of labels, e.g.
> 
> Protocol-Quality.  We need a statement about the perceived
> quality of the protocol described in the document.   (Is this
> protocol well-designed for the anticipated use cases, or does
> it have significant flaws (including security flaws)?)
> Applicability.  We need a statement about the current
> applicability of the protocol described in the document.  (Is
>...

Hi.  

It is difficult to imagine how these sorts of idea would work in
conjunction with RFCs given that those are explicitly archival,
never-changing documents and your suggestions seem to imply
evolving classification and comment systems.

However, a number of similar ideas --including effectively
replacing Standards-Track Maturity levels with more descriptive
text and finer-grained comments were incorporated into a
proposal to the NEWTRK WG in 2005-2006.   I think it is safe to
suggest that the reasons why the proposal never went anywhere
remain controversial, but you might find it interesting
recreational reading:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/

     john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email