Re: PS Characterization Clarified

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Tue, 17 September 2013 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0C211E83F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6qD35TvYkGef for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4E411E83F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uz6so5156128obc.34 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ztvHbEvYP8H5kSrk+HMPkpEsUNV6N6OIUn7q11ABDqM=; b=R6F9IaNtZGKEGxjitioAtVfCZOZwrNLrHqZ+h2XfAormVSsBmZY5Bedg7h12z4Bioz HT2eCRwh/n7XAv3egYPtjlqNKTxtcpwA330Ta0WkB/MSR1lMC5qJzuRzxjzhYfLXmNlS 6yzfpLh9FPh4+Zo4e7T3Ja7fEPw+kqLmcHhW0sW+ZbJ9ACODOy7A1zZfFNEqItAz7sRo IAU9ZQ8uBtHS+mUh+ydLskGvkOkrjCdgT6erla2N6so2D8HcJ1umooXAWBSMOOQo9J6B JtnlxQlpPYIwPCQo2kAL1Nnxvhd2Lgf+x8mtpBBefA7sqlgdgDWgnznua5bvFOcdE/I9 PpPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.237.44 with SMTP id uz12mr30150471obc.11.1379415985828; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.2.134 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.2.134 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwHk4xR0fZ_EgBPFmtRUEP_QbS2X+Uk3=ibnX2dk59Ajg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net> <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com> <EC75AB54-8B11-42B9-8049-F70D09DB1775@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAC4RtVDj3tBChrJBiBiD6uwOtGRJHLDYeh62XbERrHp0i1Fmfg@mail.gmail.com> <522761EB.2000002@gmail.com> <13BBB594-4510-4903-917B-67D39F60E2BD@NLnetLabs.nl> <A87B7462DC459B3D64373984@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6A29D567-0C5A-4CB4-ABDF-450D52D2C642@NLnetLabs.nl> <CALaySJK5f+ozCMUnVRXHDq9Vdx699LJXKGvkR40BxkgYCv9KwA@mail.gmail.com> <75F53956E64249D2F2321E5E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <394950A2-1F83-4D0B-9B26-B4A064B65031@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAKHUCzwHk4xR0fZ_EgBPFmtRUEP_QbS2X+Uk3=ibnX2dk59Ajg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:06:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP8BHwUP+4_62z3qDkPTdhAxrUi-Bf1ZpBb9g+6oSKWjag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1cf52d537ed04e6924fdf"
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 17 Sep 2013 11:06:35 -0000

On Sep 17, 2013 6:33 AM, "Dave Cridland" <dave@cridland.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on the conversation below I converged to:
>>
>>
>>    <t>
>>       While less mature specifications will usually be published as
>>       Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in exceptional
>>       cases, publish a specification that still contains areas for
>>       improvement or certain uncertainties about whether the best
>>       engineering choices are made.  In those cases that fact will be
>>       clearly and prominently communicated in the document e.g. in the
>>       abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.
>>     </t>
>>
>
> I read John's message as being against the use of the phrase "in
exceptional cases". I would also like to avoid that; it suggests that some
exceptional argument may have to be made, and has the implication that it
essentially operates outside the process.
>
> I would prefer the less formidable-sounding "on occasion", which still
implies relative rarity.
>
> Dave.

Exceptions and arguments for and against are part of the process. Having a
process with no consideration for exceptions would be exceptional.