IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 17 September 2013 10:52 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 1AA5F11E83AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 lBd+xZh0EYwI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from statler.isode.com (statler.isode.com [62.3.217.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2942311E83E0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1379415151; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=phgbUh31sJ/1920d708z65+kdSLa6ZtU5jSE8LhJ+ek=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=h1gNVEFkRZEIvY/tkS5q6TQ57pqBkMfC4r31jRkjRwklVF3R5wie/I2hGnwmyDV4T1ODnD vEJxXvnELgHdBrdKh/oZyKkeXb3senL/p98Q+VbPk0u9h+NHzjLTdt8KdZHZBWFqPtAXfd q5lvzf8Lc3vDHpFpYctC1jW3Z54R16g=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Ujg0bQA087RR@statler.isode.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:52:30 +0100
Message-ID: <52383471.8020801@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:52:33 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net> <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com> <EC75AB54-8B11-42B9-8049-F70D09DB1775@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAC4RtVDj3tBChrJBiBiD6uwOtGRJHLDYeh62XbERrHp0i1Fmfg@mail.gmail.com> <522761EB.2000002@gmail.com> <13BBB594-4510-4903-917B-67D39F60E2BD@NLnetLabs.nl> <A87B7462DC459B3D64373984@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6A29D567-0C5A-4CB4-ABDF-450D52D2C642@NLnetLabs.nl> <CALaySJK5f+ozCMUnVRXHDq9Vdx699LJXKGvkR40BxkgYCv9KwA@mail.gmail.com> <75F53956E64249D2F2321E5E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <394950A2-1F83-4D0B-9B26-B4A064B65031@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAKHUCzwHk4xR0fZ_EgBPFmtRUEP_QbS2X+Uk3=ibnX2dk59Ajg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwHk4xR0fZ_EgBPFmtRUEP_QbS2X+Uk3=ibnX2dk59Ajg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020800020105020106000802"
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF list <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: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:52:50 -0000

On 17/09/2013 11:32, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 
> <mailto:olaf@nlnetlabs.nl>> wrote:
>
>
>     Based on the conversation below I converged to:
>
>
>        <t>
>           While less mature specifications will usually be published as
>           Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in exceptional
>           cases, publish a specification that still contains areas for
>           improvement or certain uncertainties about whether the best
>           engineering choices are made.  In those cases that fact will be
>           clearly and prominently communicated in the document e.g. in the
>           abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.
>         </t>
>
>
> I read John's message as being against the use of the phrase "in 
> exceptional cases". I would also like to avoid that; it suggests that 
> some exceptional argument may have to be made, and has the implication 
> that it essentially operates outside the process.
>
> I would prefer the less formidable-sounding "on occasion", which still 
> implies relative rarity.

+1.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status