IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Wed, 27 October 2010 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 C4D3F3A672F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 WBqwZ1Lpwv6y for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50E23A659A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-CheckPoint: {4CC896A9-0-1B221DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9RLPKP1007694; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:25:21 +0200
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:25:20 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:25:19 +0200
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Thread-Topic: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Thread-Index: Act2HXS4eyf42yKWSnC/uGZ6qu7Zqw==
Message-ID: <F5D56B4B-24FC-4618-AF94-081F8384C9ED@checkpoint.com>
References: <20101026232023.8FFF65B66CA@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <AANLkTi=tZnyVV+bcikN3jcRYnhixHbt0sv6yDEtyb=wT@mail.gmail.com> <046e01cb756d$cacf9d40$606ed7c0$@net> <4CC891F9.1030104@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4CC891F9.1030104@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:23:32 -0000

On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Bob Braden wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> In this environment, the only thing that seems to make sense is for WGs 
> to start usually at Experimental (someone else suggested this, I 
> apologize for not recalling who it was).

You might mean me. But having authored 2 experimental RFCs, one informational and one PS, I did not get a feeling that the bar was any different between the levels. The only difference was that without implementations, the ADs preferred Experimental to PS. The review process was no different, though.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email