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

[Hector <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, I was wondering which BIS documents with no RFC
>> publication dates would be candidates.  93 total.
> 
> Based on the first few, there are a bunch of errors in your
> list.  

Yes, just imported into SQL database what Jari provided for the raw 
data and for the output shown below, the SQL query was:

SELECT
   draft,
   initdate,
   datediff(Now(),initdate) as days,
   revs,
   cstate
FROM idpub
   WHERE rfcdate = "0000-00-00" AND draft like "%bis%"
   ORDER by days;

Sure, there seems to have some book keeping aging in the data. i.e. 
duplicate records or new ones not replacing others (hence the dupes 
you saw), verifying some of the drafts with the actual, some had real 
revisions but the revision count field was 0.

I just wanted to give a rough output of those labeled as bis but did 
not have a RFC publishing date, sorted by the number of days from 
start to today.

> I'd think the likely candidates of this type would be
> documents that have been approved, or are near approval, for
> Draft Standard.  The more interesting case would be documents
> like 5321.  There is no question about either interoperability
> or wide deployment and use, but, given outstanding errata, the
> list of proposed changes in the YAM preevaluation document, and
> other issues that have come up, I doubt that there would be
> consensus for moving the existing document to full standard.  On
> the other hand, this change does not increase the motivation to
> do more work on it and may decrease it, so it is, as I said, and
> interesting case.
> 

I would assume those documents that have been in the IESG hands will 
get flushed out quickly.

For example, lets used DKIM, a query of:

select draft,
       initdate,
       iesgdays as iesg,
       datediff(Now(),initdate) as days,
       rfcdate,
       revs, cstate
      from idpub
      where draft like "%dkim%"
      order by days;

Produces:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT                                 INITDATE    IESG  DAYS   RFCDATE 
     REVS CSTATE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
draft-crocker-dkim-doseta             2011-01-13  114   241 
0000-00-00  0    ID Exists
draft-crocker-dkim-rfc4871bis-doseta  2011-01-13  114   241 
0000-00-00  0    ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis            2010-08-16  304   391 
0000-00-00  3    RFC Ed Queue
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists          2010-05-08  344   491 
0000-00-00  2    RFC Ed Queue
draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint     2009-02-12  180   941 
0000-00-00  0    ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata        2009-01-26  87    958 
2009-08-27  3    RFC Published
draft-hallambaker-dkim-extensions     2008-07-02  196   1166 
0000-00-00  0    ID Exists
draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting        2007-12-03  468   1378 
0000-00-00  0    AD is watching
draft-ietf-dkim-deployment            2007-11-11  716   1400 
2010-06-01  2    RFC Published
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements      2006-08-10  317   1858 
2007-10-17  1    RFC Published
draft-hallambaker-dkimpolicy          2006-06-22  180   1907 
0000-00-00  0    ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-overview              2006-06-22  857   1907 
2009-07-08  2    RFC Published
draft-fenton-dkim-threats             2005-09-28  2136  2174 
0000-00-00  0    Dead
draft-ietf-dkim-threats               2005-09-28  102   2174 
2006-10-04  1    RFC Published
draft-dkim-pkix                       2005-09-09  185   2193 
0000-00-00  0    ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-base                  2005-07-12  225   2252 
2007-05-28  5    RFC Published
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp                   2005-07-12  452   2252 
2009-08-12  4    RFC Published
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With my familiarity with DKIM, the above seems to reflect pretty close 
to the history. I venture among those
yet to be published but in the hands of the IESG, seem to be good 
candidates.

draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis            I expect this one for sure
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists          Maybe
draft-crocker-dkim-doseta             don't know enough about it but 
its Crocker :)
draft-crocker-dkim-rfc4871bis-doseta  don't know enough about it but 
its Crocker :)
draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint     don't know enough about it
draft-hallambaker-dkim-extensions     I don't recall this one
draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting        Seems like a moving target, so 
don't know.

and these probably not.

draft-hallambaker-dkimpolicy          POLICY is a deadly sin for DKIM!
draft-dkim-pkix                       don't know enough about it.

All pure SWAGGING on my part.