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

[Hector <[e-mail]>]

The question I have is who are the beneficiaries?

My input as a implementator.

For 30 or so years, I chose to followed the IETF output as an 
commercial implementator based on sound engineering trust and faith on 
follow peers, no reason to suspect or otherwise feel I need to appeal 
anything.  For the most part, it was all good positive and successful 
adventure. No naiveness in separating what was for common good against 
those what were isolated vendor specific, proprietary in nature - yet, 
I do have the GM/WORLD conservative mindset - "Whats good for IETF, is 
good for the World!"  I don't wish to buck the system.

The wind has changed that for sure, and I wonder what is the end 
result. I do know one thing: I don't like the idea that "IETF Appeal" 
is something new (to me) I have to consider these days and when that 
seems like an insurmountable mountain to climb when it comes to even 
security conflicts and back down because of it, it becomes even more 
vexing to whats going on.  I am not use to this and the older one 
gets, you seem to accept more even when you know (or feel) there are 
problems. Only the young have the energy to fight for a cause and even 
then less these days accepting things once considered problematic.

Just I hope the IETF leaders here make the right decision.  From an 
engineering standpoint, when you couple this two-step with the 
RFC2119bis efforts, it will most likely;

   a) make people think more about implementing what they
      had trouble with implementing in the first place,

   b) raise the barriers to adoption so you have less
      implementators.

With my marketing hat on, rest assured this is leveraging material.

--
HLS


Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> Hi.  I feel it's reasonable for me to speak up since I have not done so
> in over a year on this document so my opinion probably has not been
> counted.
> 
> 1) I support moving to a two level process.
> 
> 2) I've generally supported versions of this document I have read. I
> have not read this version in detail.
> 
> In regard to more global issues.
> 
> I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
> objections when judging this sort of consensus:
> 
> 1) You are not solving the most important problem
> 
> 2) This will not do any good
> 
> 
> Statements of those forms can be combined with objections. "This will
> not do any good and might do harm so I don't support it," clearly is an
> objection. Objections can be as simple and non-specific as "I don't like
> it," or more actionable. More thought out objections carry more weight
> in some senses. I certainly would hate to see us block on someone simply
> saying "I don't like it." Either enough people say that that we fail to
> have rough consensus or not enough people say that and we move on. More
> detailed objections may be worth blocking on for a time to try and
> resolve; we seem to be past point of diminishing returns here.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf