Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sun, 30 January 2011 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 58A213A67D2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:24:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 WD18OvkC9dZg for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:24:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A573A6767 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:24:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywk9 with SMTP id 9so1902979ywk.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:27:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5adL0CsZHqZCkita6BJtiP2Nk9gaH3eA5tN48mKsqLo=; b=w8kEQWPzKAgbZlZrGBo1NPj0TaUOIWeYNWuuN1j+jzJ+GhZiQNpxaj7KC4gxAI+cji d05Zg6hsFS+nTsluQ194+9JlQh6kk2W3+SyyYww1awwp60VtEpCmyXlz5N2DebOTmPlX JwP4Xb6zKontRqQQOyBZ/0cy4IkyxQHO3G4r8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=FJksyXRs6jAKV/szclfUdWAWeftQLseD0iHfvtSbRyJjeE008/OJ7bI5pUSONDV89o Ii5HCCltt4WRYzH1oQkmK4iPMb+1hsDB4/osq+yCP+wo5HtPORZ8OUxynaBfOc243VD5 AQ4L1hilDAgbA3qWK7xuyq5vJPq2Zd31aCgjM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.8.9 with SMTP id 9mr3136746anh.120.1296397638023; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.109.16 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:27:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110129223900.60C00817786@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
References: <20110129223900.60C00817786@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:27:17 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinLzBs7P2Fw-U2pNVOTqdG-nOOpYNNTMU40QK+2@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6441dd8b3b982049b11185c"
Cc: 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: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:24:08 -0000

I believe this proposal to be dangerous and undesirable.

The fact is that the three stage process has never worked. As in not ever.
If you take a look at the current Internet standards over half of the total
are grandfathered from before the IETF was started.

You cannot return to a state that never existed.


The raising of the bar for proposed standard has a very simple reason: it is
now almost impossible to change specifications once deployed. There is no
point in conducting a security review after the RFC has issued, it is too
late. Similarly there is no point in checking to see if the Gen Art criteria
are met.

Another factor here is that many specifications coming to IETF have already
had significant work done.



On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> wrote:

>
> I've previously expressed my opinion that proposals to muck with the
> number of steps in teh IETF standards process will no do anything
> useful (i.e., will not be effective) - JOhn and I have just posted
> what, to us, would be a prerequisite for amy process mucking proposal
> to succeed
>
> Scott
>
> -----
> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>        Title           : Restoring Proposed Standard to Its Intended Use
>        Author(s)       : J. Klensin, S. Bradner
>        Filename        : draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt
>        Pages           : 6
>        Date            : 2011-01-29
>
> Restore the very low bar for Proposed Standard described in RFC 2026
> (BCP 9)
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/