Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 13:17 30-08-2011, Jari Arkko wrote:
>There were a number of smaller details raised in the discussion. But 
>I did not see an overwhelming consensus on any specific issue to 
>make changes. But I will ask Russ to take a look at the issue raised 
>by Scott, whether he wants to add an informative reference to RFC 5657.

I read draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09.  I read the messages 
which might be interpreted as statements of support.  Mr Burger 
offered that we are moving a baby step forward.   Mr Resnick asked "A 
baby step toward what exactly" to which Mr Saint-Andre pointed out 
that "we are more closely aligning our documentation with our 
organizational running code".  The organizational running code 
actually sets a higher bar than what is documented in RFC 2026 for 
the publication of a Proposed Standard.  The draft does not even 
discuss about that.

Mr Carpenter believes that "the present situation is confusing both 
to IETF newcomers (who may falsely believe that the IETF actually 
follows the 3 stage process) and, worse, confusing to users of IETF 
standards (who may falsely believe that a document isn't useful until 
it's advanced). We, and those users, gain by reducing the 
confusion".  In terms of document clarity, RFC 2026 taken together 
with draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09 only reinforces the 
confusion for anyone who takes the time to read BCP 9.

Mr Atkinson pointed out that a change in perception alone is 
sufficient to increase [his] own motivation.  Mr Burger confirmed 
that the intent of the proposal is to change the perception.

Mr Halpern mentioned that the draft tries to align what we document 
with what we do.  In a response, Mr Klensin mentioned that the draft 
addresses one provision of our processes in which documentation and 
practice don't align, a provision about which there is no subtlety or 
confusion within the community at all (even though new participants 
may be confused)".

Mr Housley in response to one of my comments mentioned that the 
argument I raised was for the status quo and added that "We have 
decades of experience with that not working.  That is essentially an 
argument for a single maturity level; that is how the process is 
really working today".  As a note to the reader, I may have quoted Mr 
Housley out of context.  I presume that members of the IESG have 
followed the discussions surrounding this draft to understand the context.

The Sponsoring Area Director mentioned that the opposing opinions 
were more about a desire to do something else than specific 
objections about this proposal.  An Area Director generally sponsors 
documents that he or she believes in.  I would like to point out that 
even if a desire to do something else was tabled as a proposal, my 
perception is that it would be difficult to have such a proposal 
sponsored by the relevant Area Director.

Mr Crocker and Mr Housley are listed as authors of STD 71 and STD 70 
respectively.  It would be informative if they could comment on the 
impediments they came across in advancing their documents to Full 
Standard.  Mr Gellens and Mr Klensin might also be able to comment on 
the impediments given that they are listed as the authors of a soon 
to be published STD.

Regards,
-sm