Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Tue, 26 October 2010 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@harvard.edu>
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 7EE183A6826 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 cJRCTCP+rvMn for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4B43A67AD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8FFF65B66CA; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:20:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Message-Id: <20101026232023.8FFF65B66CA@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:20:23 -0400
From: sob@harvard.edu
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: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:18:36 -0000

Phillip politely says
> I think this is nonsense.
> We have been discussing this for over a decade. Time for debate is up. It is
> time to make a decision.

since I see no reason to think that the proposed changes will do 
anything at all to address any of the problems that I, and others, have
brought up (incuding the 'nothing progresses' problem) I have decided

I see no reason that we should make a change that is very likely to 
not fix any known problem just because we have been talking about 
various ideas for change for a long time - length of debate is not
an indication of usefulness of solution

it would not be the end of the IETF if this gets published but
it will also not be the begining of a better IETF - all of the 
problems will still be there and we would have a meaningless change 
just so we can say we made a change

Scott