IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Eric Burger <eburger-l@standardstrack.com> Fri, 25 March 2011 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger-l@standardstrack.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 CD5093A677C for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083]
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 7w6PW1AwdW7G for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.249.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90DF3A63EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=IJ7WeTByGzWcaTA34JUIHaJsudoZh4OpItIKdwy0Otyq6jiScNTidtQ+VqxP/TmtAn/DPp20O8RTBp5QSwYU5BlozvNDSUSfYDpEcS3MoZj69RWxl6V0aaSmWUOETHrN;
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.134]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger-l@standardstrack.com>) id 1Q2vXq-0004nZ-St for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:10:30 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
From: Eric Burger <eburger-l@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <0FC1DB11-05C6-4B9C-830D-528B0EA092E4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:10:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DEE6CBAE-B3FA-4B9E-B8EC-6DA4C615F12A@standardstrack.com>
References: <4B803580-664C-42B3-92A7-712452F12BA3@gmail.com> <01NTJJR8423E000CVY@mauve.mrochek.com> <20101027171037.GB3162@nsn.com> <63DD35D1-1C25-401D-8C05-992A2D11E3DE@vigilsec.com> <4D3E4DFD.4060906@att.com> <AFB68E6F-A22B-414D-941A-35BB57F4F0E0@vigilsec.com> <4D53E92A.4080008@att.com> <4D5412B4.9050600@bbiw.net> <4D541897.2050206@att.com> <4B0C7B49-F997-46D9-92BE-956983837CF1@vigilsec.com> <4D574B08.2060905@att.com> <7AF5A8CC-9B2D-45FB-80CB-34D68098336B@vigilsec.com> <4D8B6418.90800@gmail.com> <4D8B665A.8000402@joelhalpern.com> <4D8B67F3.6030203@gmail.com> <4D8B6AD7.2040102@dcrocker.net> <0FC1DB11-05C6-4B9C-830D-528B0EA092E4@gmail.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
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, 25 Mar 2011 01:09:06 -0000

Agreed.

On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:

> 
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/24/2011 4:49 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:>
>>>>> Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
>>>>> the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
>> 
>> 
>> Generally, the document tries to limit itself to discussion of what it changes.
>> 
>> There are no changes proposed for moving to Historic. (The question of Historic has not been part of the many discussions about streamlining the standards labeling.)
>> 
>> Hence that issue is out of scope for the document.
> 
> +1
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email