Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Tue, 26 October 2010 18:36 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 D96EE3A6774 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.251, 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 aBtPButaSZ4F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918663A68F5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id DF5CA5B4D26; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Message-Id: <20101026183637.DF5CA5B4D26@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:36:37 -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 18:36:01 -0000

Barry coments
> Scott, I'm confused about one thing you say:
>You seem to be saying that we have to carefully deliberate, consider
> many factors, and be serious if we want to *change* the basic rules...
> but that it's OK to *ignore* the basic rules and do whatever we want,
> with no deliberation, consideration, or seriousness (this is what
> we're doing now).

basically, yes - sometimes it is better to do nothing than to do something that
will actually make no real difference

> As I see it, the reason we need to do *something* here -- and I think
> Russ's proposal is a good start for it -- is exactly that we're
> largely ignoring those basic rules and making up a new system without
> serious consideration.

we have been ignoring some of these rules for a very long time - what makes
now a good time to change them?

Scott