IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 15 March 2011 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 171133A6B98 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, 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 yqYyDRDALcGO for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.out.tigertech.net (hermes.out.tigertech.net [74.114.88.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292173A68AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE48043B310; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-52-147.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FF5043B30F; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D7EC533.9080608@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:47:31 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
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>
In-Reply-To: <7AF5A8CC-9B2D-45FB-80CB-34D68098336B@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:46:13 -0000

There seems to be a minor but important inconsistency which leaves us 
still not clearly addressing the interoperability issues.

The commentary text on the second standards level includes, when 
commenting on the removal of the requirement for interoperability 
testing reports:
    subsumed by the requirement for
    actual deployment and use of independent and interoperable
    implementations.

While not perfect (nothing is), such a requirement would probably leave 
me satisfied.  However, there is no requirement in general for multiple 
independent implementations.  There is a requirement for multiple 
implementations and successful operational experience.  There is only a 
requirement for independent implementations relative to patented or 
otherwise controlled technologies.  And even that requirement does not 
say anything about any interoperability of those independent 
implementations.

Yours,
Joel


On 3/13/2011 7:32 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward.  We have constructed an updated proposal.  It has been posted as draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.
>
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email