IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com> Sat, 02 November 2013 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@ericsson.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 D1C2B21E808A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.816
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.216, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 shM9ttJ-RpcH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673EF21E809B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-f6-52746cb0d316
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5C.15.27941.0BC64725; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:08:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB307.ericsson.se ([169.254.7.88]) by ESESSHC002.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.24]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:08:31 +0100
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
Thread-Topic: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
Thread-Index: AQHO13jPsIWzwrWAoUSjkGbCwMPsKg==
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:08:31 +0000
Message-ID: <40AFC5D09A1926489ECFED9D7633D98A20045B@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <B4B31C25-C472-41B3-AAF8-96670E0E243F@NLnetLabs.nl> <52729C1D.7010400@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVCewEKatJKJnBbCqgsuBjHCOHY49WoTx+y-K_zDt+Smxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCewEKatJKJnBbCqgsuBjHCOHY49WoTx+y-K_zDt+Smxg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.150]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3983A904-1165-4079-9028-9A11D4486A1C"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6GnJIggxfb5C0OLb7EavH70wc2 i0Pv+1gsnm2cz2Kx/vkmJgdWj0s7T7J5tKzqZfZYsuQnk8fe3vtsHl8uf2YLYI3isklJzcks Sy3St0vgytg1cRZ7wRKzikWLfzE3MB4z7mLk5JAQMJH4dfIHK4QtJnHh3no2EFtI4AijxMYd JV2MXED2IkaJ5eeWsIMk2AS0JDYuXwBWJCKgKfH88xQmkCJmgU+MEqseNbCAJIQF7CTOzZrD ClFkL7GjZSkjhK0nMfXvOSYQm0VAReJ6wwuwGl4Bb4lN/UsYIbadYpRYe3Uu2AZOgUCJu5f6 mUFsRqDzvp9aA9bMLCAucevJfCaIs0UkHl48zQZhi0q8fPwP6h0liRXbLzFCXDeFUeL5j6eM ENsEJU7OfMIygVF0FpJZs5DVzUJSB1GkLbFs4WtmCFtP4mXTO3YI21Ti9dGPjBC2tcSMXwfZ IGxFiSndD9kXMHKsYuQoTi1Oyk03MtjECIzYg1t+W+xgvPzX5hCjNAeLkjjvx7fOQUIC6Ykl qdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoY+4oqNxo5KbaFyW5J+KCTOjnBqorRO7o6THTq27q+GqM7 vcf2vha5vMeGp8OT42XGBd7A3Lc3Oet6b4a9iN+QsMeAyT1GNVM7NrPhUclC1zV3hVPdPRLs Fn9QKCthfKfX19Widuj3nUfzkh58j9ZceWf370S7icqBR8PUzxlkL5x5yGvt1VtKLMUZiYZa zEXFiQBDOPP6pgIAAA==
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 08:11:09 -0700
Cc: "<draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:09:20 -0000

I largely agree with what Barry is saying. Additional review is always helpful, but I'm pessimistic about getting relevant additional review. And I'm mostly thinking of the kind of people where this work started from; folk who would have a problem using RFCs as reference standards in, say, government procurement, but would happily go on using their computers with all kinds of Internet technology in them after speaking :-) I think the crux of the matter is to get our own house in order and be consistent between reality and our description of the IETF process. And this is what we're doing.

FWIW, my personal opinions on content: 

I am happy with the 3.2 as it stands, but also happy with Barry's suggested "by-reference" formulation.

I agree with Barry's description of why Section 4 is necessary.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email